maxine in ri wrote:
> On Nov 12, 12:20 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Nancy2 > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 12, 9:44 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>>>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>>>>> And we wonder why GM is broke..now they want YOU & ME, the lowly
>>>>>> taxpayer, to bail them out!!
>>>>>> GM Spends $17 Million Per Year on Viagra
>>
>>>>> Wonder if they cover birth *control* pills, which would seem
>>>>> a wiser investment as having babies is not cheap for the
>>>>> insurance company.
>>
>>>>> nancy
>>
>>>> Here's the odd thing - along with Viagra, most companies cover in
>>>> vitro fertilization treatments. I really resent that. As far as I'm
>>>> concerned, "needing" Viagra is an ego thing, and in vitro (or other
>>>> medical treatments for infertility) seems on a par with cosmetic
>>>> surgery.
>>
>>> Childless couples would not agree with that... Sorry.
>>
>> Having children doesn't guarantee they would be able to afford them.
>> Hence, the Welfare system.
>>
>> Jill
>
> True, but we're talking about employed union workers health benefits,
> not someone in your situation.
>
> maxine in ri

Unions (or any insurance program) shouldn't pay for any of it. If they
won't pay for birth control they certainly shouldn't pay for Viagra.
Someone "in my situation" is too old to have children.