I hate always having something to say about this subject.  I don't want to seem like a jack ass.  Unfortunately I just have had a lot of experience with a lot of these drugs.  

In the old days (five or six years ago) I was a sometimes user of cialis.  But I needed 20mg to get an effect.  Levitra at 10mg was more preferred.  Cialis did have a nice, natural feel to it though.

Last year I was having such a problem with BPH and frequent urination, that my doctor and I tried to see what daily 5mg of cialis would do.  Short answer. Not much.  And it didn't give much of a boost either.  I would take an extra 10mg on days I intended to have sex.  Just so-so.  

I paid cash out of my pocket.  It was expensive but I was desperate.  Can't remember exactly but like $250 for the month.  If it had worked I was prepared to appeal to medicare that the med was for BPH not ED and maybe they would have picked it up.  

It really pisses me off that the feds don't think older men deserve a good sex life.  Congress is a bunch of prudes.  The women's lobby would get such a medicine were it available since they believe that it is imperative that they control their own bodies.  Medicare picks up Hormone Replacement Therapy for women.  I don't see the difference.

after having failed 2 other treatments (FloMax was one).  But it's still pricey even with insurance.  For me the ED benifit is a bonus.  I don't need a lot of ED help, when I used Viagra, I could get away with .25 mg.

I get a quicker recover time and last longer