By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders.
Yes, that's precisely what Democrats want to do. Or, perhaps they recognize that establishing a precedent of denying certain very specific types of health care to equally specific groups of people is grossly inefficient. Also, in light of Obama's math gaffe last week, it should be noted that Rep Coburn alleged that this would save 'millions of dollars per year.' That's both a lot of Viagra, and a lot of sex offenders wanting it. Methinks he might have pulled those numbers from betwixt his buttocks.
As for sex offenders . . .if they're dangerous, don't let 'em out. If they're not, let them live their lives. It's probably not the ones calling attention to themselves by ordering viagra that we need to worry about.
They shouldn't vote yes on it, because it's an incredibly stupid provision, meant only to put them in the position of looking bad if they vote no. I want to know when Coburn stopped beating his wife.
this provision would only apply to sex offenders who were a)not in prison, b)incapable of maintaining an erection c)not covered by a private plan d)willing to call attention to themselves by asking for a substance that might aid them in committing a crime, and provide evidence against them if they did. My guess is, that's not a very large number. For that, you're going to add a procedural hoop for patients to jump through, since everyone who wants viagra will now have to be background checked. Not withstanding the fact that someone who has served their sentence should be entitled to live a normal life (and again, if you disagree, increase the freaking sentences), this is a large expenditure for a small gain. That's bad legislation, and should be voted down.
Max and Mazenko: Increasing the prison sentences is something that must be done at the state level, as child molestation is a state-level crime; It cannot be done in this federal legislation. What can be done is to limit Viagra to these people under this health care law.
Sorry, but if you support the legislation, then its time for you to own all the crap that is in it, and that includes convicted pedophiles being able to access Viagra under the new health care control law that you support.
I'm not sure why you think I support this bill . . I don't. That said, I'm not prepared to criticize aspects that are needed for reform to occur (mandated coverage) or additions that are unnecessary complications that wouold wind up increasing costs (this asinine viagra provision.) I'm sure Rep. Coburn was very pleased with himself for thinking up this 'straw flaw', but I wish he had done more either to round up more opponents to the bill, or propose a better solution.
I think he did an expert job of maneuvering the Democrats into making asses of themselves, and showing how little they're willing to "reach across the aisle" to agree on *anything*.
O'Neil and Reagan were the last to reach across the aisle. McCain says the GOP will not cooperate on anything for the rest of the year. What an idiot.
1. They haven't cooperated on anything so far.
2. If a really important fair and logical issue comes up later this year - like a new national emergency - they won't cooperate, just to get back at the Democrats? Real mature, John.
You might be right. I certainly hope our nation can weather the upcoming storm of legally obtained, chemically induced erection caused sexual assaults that are sure to be visited upon us.
15 comments:
Yes, that's precisely what Democrats want to do. Or, perhaps they recognize that establishing a precedent of denying certain very specific types of health care to equally specific groups of people is grossly inefficient. Also, in light of Obama's math gaffe last week, it should be noted that Rep Coburn alleged that this would save 'millions of dollars per year.' That's both a lot of Viagra, and a lot of sex offenders wanting it. Methinks he might have pulled those numbers from betwixt his buttocks.
As for sex offenders . . .if they're dangerous, don't let 'em out. If they're not, let them live their lives. It's probably not the ones calling attention to themselves by ordering viagra that we need to worry about.
I guess Congress considers this as an act that supports their income or status as a minority group (pervert...)?
Want to give? Want to?
Come on, Darren, That's so disingenuous. How very O'Reilly of you.
Is that name-calling?
Why not just vote yes on it? They voted yes on other things.
They shouldn't vote yes on it, because it's an incredibly stupid provision, meant only to put them in the position of looking bad if they vote no. I want to know when Coburn stopped beating his wife.
So by voting against this amendment, the Dems are showing that they *don't* want sex offenders to have access to Viagra?
Great logic there, Max and Mazenko.
What?
Chanman, um, no. Let me be more specific:
this provision would only apply to sex offenders who were a)not in prison, b)incapable of maintaining an erection c)not covered by a private plan d)willing to call attention to themselves by asking for a substance that might aid them in committing a crime, and provide evidence against them if they did. My guess is, that's not a very large number. For that, you're going to add a procedural hoop for patients to jump through, since everyone who wants viagra will now have to be background checked. Not withstanding the fact that someone who has served their sentence should be entitled to live a normal life (and again, if you disagree, increase the freaking sentences), this is a large expenditure for a small gain. That's bad legislation, and should be voted down.
Max and Mazenko: Increasing the prison sentences is something that must be done at the state level, as child molestation is a state-level crime; It cannot be done in this federal legislation. What can be done is to limit Viagra to these people under this health care law.
Sorry, but if you support the legislation, then its time for you to own all the crap that is in it, and that includes convicted pedophiles being able to access Viagra under the new health care control law that you support.
Congratulations.
I'm not sure why you think I support this bill . . I don't. That said, I'm not prepared to criticize aspects that are needed for reform to occur (mandated coverage) or additions that are unnecessary complications that wouold wind up increasing costs (this asinine viagra provision.) I'm sure Rep. Coburn was very pleased with himself for thinking up this 'straw flaw', but I wish he had done more either to round up more opponents to the bill, or propose a better solution.
I think he did an expert job of maneuvering the Democrats into making asses of themselves, and showing how little they're willing to "reach across the aisle" to agree on *anything*.
I give him major kudos.
O'Neil and Reagan were the last to reach across the aisle. McCain says the GOP will not cooperate on anything for the rest of the year. What an idiot.
1. They haven't cooperated on anything so far.
2. If a really important fair and logical issue comes up later this year - like a new national emergency - they won't cooperate, just to get back at the Democrats? Real mature, John.
I don't care if you don't support it. By not opposing it, you support it by default.
In my world (and Darren's), results count more than intentions.
You might be right. I certainly hope our nation can weather the upcoming storm of legally obtained, chemically induced erection caused sexual assaults that are sure to be visited upon us.
If this amendment could have saved only one child...
Post a Comment