State-Subsidized Viagra for Rapists

[Mason]

You're one of those Masons, I can tell.

Nono!! I'm one of those other masons.

 

[Tmy]

Its the drug companies. They make billions and billions off the govt. and they have all sorts of politicans bought n paid for. You think they want any limits on who gets what? They are the ones making out.

 

[peptoabysmal]

WTOP news in DC has a new "Knucklehead of the Week" feature. They mentioned this story on the air today and observed that it's a contestant for this week's award. Announcer explained - no lie - that it goes to the person, persons, or organization that "pulled the biggest boner this week."



Viagra for sex offenders is currently running away from the rest of the field.

This could go in the category of penal boner.

 

[peptoabysmal]

IIRC most if not all insurance companies and or organizations have a list of approved prescriptions. Just because something is approved of by the FDA does not mean an insurance company or organization is obligated to pay for it. A criminal check is not an issue for me. I would suggest that Viagra not be an approved druged that is on any publicly funded program

Even medicare for the elderly? I'm not challenging your position, but this is the only exception that I would approve of. (not that any politicians give a care what I approve of) And I could be talked out of this approval.

 

[RandFan]

Even medicare for the elderly? I'm not challenging your position, but this is the only exception that I would approve of. (not that any politicians give a care what I approve of) And I could be talked out of this approval.

Maybe we could take up a collection for you pepto. How old are you and what is the status of your condition? Half mast, one quarter?

Honestly I'm not thrilled about paying for anyone's Viagra. What if the doctor prescribes porno?

 

[Mycroft]

The purpose of all medicine is to improve and extend the quality of life for the patient. I don't see any reason not to provide viagra for medicare patients. I don't see any purpose in humiliating recipients by denying they have a right to a quality sex life just because they can't afford better insurance.

 

[RandFan]

The purpose of all medicine is to improve and extend the quality of life for the patient. I don't see any reason not to provide viagra for medicare patients. I don't see any purpose in humiliating recipients by denying they have a right to a quality sex life just because they can't afford better insurance.

Plastic surgery? Lipo Suction? Where is "quality sex life" written?

...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--Declaration of Independence

"Pursuit", we have the righ to pursuit. If you are unatractive and have a bad disposition then you have to do the best with what you got. Otherwise I want a blonde with big breasts so I won't be humiliated...well, maybe a little humiliation would be ok.

 

[Mycroft]

Plastic surgery? Lipo Suction? Where is "quality sex life" written?

"Pursuit", we have the righ to pursuit. If you are unatractive and have a bad disposition then you have to do the best with what you got. Otherwise I want a blonde with big breasts so I won't be humiliated...well, maybe a little humiliation would be ok.

I think we can strike a balance somewhere between unlimited access to cosmetic surgery and punitively denying someone a pill that could make a tremendous difference in their happiness and self-esteem. If this is a "slippery slope" argument, I don’t buy it.

By the way, I don’t think the Declaration of Independence, as wonderful a document as it is, is the basis for law in the US.

 

[RandFan]

I think we can strike a balance somewhere between unlimited access to cosmetic surgery and punitively denying someone a pill that could make a tremendous difference in their happiness and self-esteem. If this is a "slippery slope" argument, I don’t buy it.

I never said anything about unlimited access to cosmetic surgery. Why is denying someone Viagra punitive? I'm not making a "slippery slope" argument. I'm asking an honest question. I've seen old people. Plastic surgery would likely make a bigger difference to many of them than Viagra and I mean that with all sincerity. A new home could make a big difference. A new car. I don't see why it is the governments job to buy happiness or ward off embarrassment. What if some guy doesn't have a problem with erectile dysfunction but has other problems standing between him and quality of life?

By the way, I don’t think the Declaration of Independence, as wonderful a document as it is, is the basis for law in the US.

It states clearly what inalienable rights our founding fathers believed we were due. But if you don't like that then by all means show me where in the Constitution such rights are granted?

 

[Mason]

Does insurance cover psychologists/psychiatrists?

Minimal health should not be defined as "Can get out of bed, dress, and work an 8 hour day, 5 days a week." I'm not saying that anyone has said this, but this could be called the low end of the spectrum. The high end would be cosmetic surgery such as penile implants... In an octogenarian...female...

Okay, somewhere in between is a level called "Reasonably healthy" and that level is what should be provided. Reasonably healthy should include mental health as well as physical health, in reasonable doses. Should Prozac be considered a reasonable prescription? Ritalin? Birth control prescribed for other than controlling birth? The same for controling birth?

How about less obvious things, such as prosthetics and wheelchairs? Sure, you'll do just fine with that one leg and a crutch. Why should the state offer assistance beyond that, such as a wheelchair or basic prosthetic?

I think, ultimately, that if the doctor feels that Viagra will help ease dysfunction beyond the zipper, then it should probably be considered. If I'm too wacky to hold down a job, the state will pay for my happy pills. If I can't continue an intimate relationship with my wife or girlfriend (or barwench, or priest, your pick), and that makes me wacky, should the state pay for my happy pills?

That is, if the source of my dysfunction is chemical, pills can be covered by the state. If the source is other than chemical, but can be fixed with pills, shouldn't they be covered in a similar fashion?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't see why it is the governments job to buy happiness or ward off embarrassment.

I’ll just quote this one sentence because it’s the philosophical core of what we’re both saying.

It’s not the governments job to buy happiness or ward off embarrassment. Then again, it’s not the governments job to provide health care either, yet for some people it does.

There really is no one great philosophical principle that dictates what is in the realm of governmental responsibility and what is not. Our government of the United States of America does many things that some would say are outside the realm of what government should do, but over the years we have elected that it should do these things. From funding poetry to children’s television, exploring space, regulating air traffic, deciding who gets to use what radio frequencies, establishing standards of nutrition, or funding pure scientific research...there are hundreds of things our government does that can be argued are outside of its obligations and responsibilities.

So on this issue we have no foundational philosophical principle to argue, there is no right found in our Constitution to guarantee access to erections, all we have to argue here is our different opinions of what kind of society we want to live it.

For myself, I recognize that we live in one of the more wealthy societies of the world and it is my opinion that to a reasonable degree, that wealth should be reflected in what we provide to our least fortunate citizens, those who are likely to depend on medicare or medicaid. For those people, while I might agree that purely cosmetic liposuction should be out of the question, I would not begrudge someone who suffered erectile disfunction access to a small pill that could correct the condition and lead to a normal, satisfying sex life.

As for Viagra for sex offenders, I think we’ve let our emotionalism run away with us. I would want to learn scientifically that providing the drug might increase recidivism before I would deny it to someone who would otherwise qualify for it. Failing that evidence, we should not be vindictive.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Maybe we could take up a collection for you pepto. How old are you and what is the status of your condition? Half mast, one quarter?

Honestly I'm not thrilled about paying for anyone's Viagra. What if the doctor prescribes porno?

Older than dirt and it is a moot point since I lost my "condition" to a land mine in the war. Lost my dong shootin' at chong... (j/k)

Unless you are collecting something else... (the plot of Sex and Zen comes to mind... hmmm... wait... I have a horse...)

My condition is no quarter (in the knights of the round table sense).

Better yet, what if the FDA starts administering porn? Will there be animal testing? Double-blind testing (with whips)? Imagine how much "Buffy does Baltimore" will cost you then!

Now, to address that slippery slope; you really aren't equating a prescription medicine which has been scientifically tested vs. a perceived effect of ocular stimulation, are you?

 

[RandFan]

I’ll just quote this one sentence because it’s the philosophical core of what we’re both saying.

It’s not the governments job to buy happiness or ward off embarrassment. Then again, it’s not the governments job to provide health care either, yet for some people it does.

There really is no one great philosophical principle that dictates what is in the realm of governmental responsibility and what is not. Our government of the United States of America does many things that some would say are outside the realm of what government should do, but over the years we have elected that it should do these things. From funding poetry to children’s television, exploring space, regulating air traffic, deciding who gets to use what radio frequencies, establishing standards of nutrition, or funding pure scientific research...there are hundreds of things our government does that can be argued are outside of its obligations and responsibilities.

So on this issue we have no foundational philosophical principle to argue, there is no right found in our Constitution to guarantee access to erections, all we have to argue here is our different opinions of what kind of society we want to live it.

For myself, I recognize that we live in one of the more wealthy societies of the world and it is my opinion that to a reasonable degree, that wealth should be reflected in what we provide to our least fortunate citizens, those who are likely to depend on medicare or medicaid. For those people, while I might agree that purely cosmetic liposuction should be out of the question, I would not begrudge someone who suffered erectile disfunction access to a small pill that could correct the condition and lead to a normal, satisfying sex life.

As for Viagra for sex offenders, I think we’ve let our emotionalism run away with us. I would want to learn scientifically that providing the drug might increase recidivism before I would deny it to someone who would otherwise qualify for it. Failing that evidence, we should not be vindictive.

Hey Mycroft,

I really don't get the dissonance between plastic surgery and Viagra. What is so special about Viagra and why is plastic surgery de-facto bad or wrong or whatever? I just don't get it. Wouldn't it be compassionate to provide surgery to someone who is suffering from problems of self esteem due to an aesthetic problem? What about the overweight guy who doesn't have sex due to his corpulence? Why can't he get stomach surgery? (at 400+ this includes me) Is it simply a mater of cost? If these things cost the equivalent of Viagra over a 10 year period would you reconsider them?

I guess I just don't see the substantive difference? Why is the fact that it is a "small pill" of any importance? How much would Viagra cost over a 10 year period compared to an eye lift? Why do you put so much importance in a normal satisfying sex life and why wouldn't other measures that could lead to a satisfying sex life be off limits? A sex change?

If it were my decision I would not include Viagra as part of any governmentally funded program. I have some libertarian leanings. I'm not a fan of PBS, NEA, and lot's of governmental programs. I think the value of these programs are questionable at best. I'm not strictly a libertarian though. I do like the space program and I think it in the public interest to regulate TV and Radio. I don't lose sleep at night because my tax dollars fund Sesame Street. I'm willing to accept that we as a society can choose to do things that make us feel warm and fuzzy as long as the public votes into office representatives that pass laws for these programs then I accept the system. However I choose to speak out against some of them. If it makes you feel good to pay for Viagra for old folks then that is fine. It doesn't make me feel as such.

I absolutely don't want to spend money on a sex offenders sexual pleasure. That offends me and I can find no sense in it. I don't care about recidivism. The point is that while I don't think we need to be proactively cruel we don't need to proactively assist in sex offenders pleasure either. That's my opinion. I hope you can respect it. I never say never but I'm unlikely to change that anytime soon.

Thank you for your reasoned argument,

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

Older than dirt and it is a moot point since I lost my "condition" to a land mine in the war. Lost my dong shootin' at chong... (j/k)

Unless you are collecting something else... (the plot of Sex and Zen comes to mind... hmmm... wait... I have a horse...)

My condition is no quarter (in the knights of the round table sense).

Better yet, what if the FDA starts administering porn? Will there be animal testing? Double-blind testing (with whips)? Imagine how much "Buffy does Baltimore" will cost you then!

Volume, we sell enough Buffy does animals in Baltimore we can bring the cost down.

How about porn and Pot? I'll tell you what, you get the government to give me porn, pot and a night with Faith Hill and Shania Twain or the Olson Twins and I'll let the old folks have Viagra, deal? Now that's horse trading...but leave out the horse.

Now, to address that slippery slope; you really aren't equating a prescription medicine which has been scientifically tested vs. a perceived effect of ocular stimulation, are you?

I think pointing out that it is a "prescription medicine" is to give it an unwarranted value. Why should Viagra be different from porn? Because it is a chemical? Because it is taken internally? Sorry but I don't buy that argument. Not bad though.

 

[The Fool]

If you decide that its legal for doctors to prescribe it then I don't see how you cannot treat it the same as other drugs in regard to subsidies..


But anyway, I don't see what the problem is when its available so cheap via unsolicited emails...

 

[BPSCG]

The purpose of all medicine is to improve and extend the quality of life for the patient. I don't see any reason not to provide viagra for medicare patients.

It appears you - and others here - are glossing over the difference between MediCARE and MediCAID. Medicare is health insurance, comes in two parts. Part A is hospital insurance, and you are entitled to it if you are 65 years old and have paid into Social Security long enough to be entitled to Social Security benefits (I'm simplifying somewhat here). Part B is called Supplemental Medical Insurance and pays for doctor bills, outpatient treatment, and other such stuff. Prescription drugs were not covered at all until Congress passed the $400 billion prescription drug bill last year. You're entitled to SMI (that's what it's called at your local Social Security office) by becoming entitled to part A and paying a monthly premium.

Notice - to get either part of MediCARE, you have to have paid Social Security taxes and (for part B) have to pay the additional premium. It's an insurance program.

MediCAID, OTOH, is medical welfare, pure and simple. Qualifications are simple: You have to be in need of medical care that you can't afford to pay.

I don't see any purpose in humiliating recipients by denying they have a right to a quality sex life just because they can't afford better insurance.

Medicare covers that, and I have no problem with that, because you're paying for the insurance that covers it. But making an erection a welfare right, which society must buy for you if you can't afford it, is ridiculous. It is not a health benefit; it doesn't cure any disease, arrest any disease, control any disease, or prevent any disease. A better argument could be made for requiring Medicaid to cover dental floss, since floss has been proven to prevent gum disease. What is the argument for covering Viagra but not dental floss?

 

[Leif Roar]

I agree. Viagra is a quality of life drug, not a necessity.

The same argument can be made for most prescriptions of pain killers.

 

[Leif Roar]

But making an erection a welfare right, which society must buy for you if you can't afford it, is ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? Why shouldn't we consider physological impotence as a health issue in the same way that we consider the lack of function in any other organ a health issue?

 

[Bjorn]

it doesn't cure any disease, arrest any disease, control any disease, or prevent any disease. A better argument could be made for requiring Medicaid to cover dental floss, since floss has been proven to prevent gum disease. What is the argument for covering Viagra but not dental floss?

Am I wrong, or is it in fact called erectile function disease?

Erectile function disease or impotence can be caused by stress, tiredness, relational problems, medications or certain diseases. After a thorough exam, the doctor will recommend a method of treatment.

http://www.middakotaclinic.com/services/subdivision-detail.asp?SID=16&DID=68&SDID=22

 

[BPSCG]

Why is that ridiculous? Why shouldn't we consider physological impotence as a health issue in the same way that we consider the lack of function in any other organ a health issue?

Because if your heart stops functioning, you will die.
If your lungs stop functioning, you will die.
If your kidneys stop functioning, you will die.
If your liver stops functioning, you will die.
If your brain stops functioning, you will die.
If your Johnson stops functioning, you will die?