Reply With Quote
Texas is taking a hard stance.
ChronicleAUSTIN — Texas is banning all Medicaid claims for impotence drugs following reports that hundreds of convicted sex offenders in more than a dozen states got subsidized prescriptions for them. <snip>
In Texas, the drugs only will be available for patients diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, a rare aggressive vascular disease primarily found in women, Hawkins said. He said he plans to ask the federal government to allow Texas to make the restrictions permanent.
On Tuesday, Hawkins ordered his agency to develop a system to regularly compare its database of Medicaid clients with a state database of convicted sex offenders to prevent them from receiving the impotence drugs.
Despite the blanket ban, Hawkins said his agency will continue to develop that system. <snip>
I guess it would make to much sense to just barr the convicted sex offenders from receiving prescriptions for Viagra in the State. I mean, why do that when you can just as easily barr a whole class of 'evil' poor people from having something that might improve the quality of life? Right?
Texas is taking a hard stance.
What is your point? Are you trying to make one?
My point is that this is simple class-warfare. Whenever a Republican says the word morality you can bet what he is really saying is money.What is your point? Are you trying to make one?
Always!
Always!
I have to disagree on this one Dan, I really dont think tax payer dollars ought to go to Viagra.
But there is a contraversey involving Republicans in New Jersey trying to change the New Jersey Devils nickname because it is Satanic that I find ..... stupid.
Its a quality of life issue. Surely, we prescibe medicine for all kinds of quality of life aches and discomforts. Ridiline for our children so they listen in class, happy-pills for those with chemical imbalances, , we even have a pill that claims to cure male pattern baldness and yes, taxpayers pay for much of these medicines. So why shouldn't poor people have a pill that will assure them a healthy sex life? Isn't sex an important aspect of a happy life?I have to disagree on this one Dan, I really dont think tax payer dollars ought to go to Viagra.
So should the tax payers pay for guns for convicted armed robbers too? Viagra for sex offenders is stupid. Viagra for anyone on the taxpayers money is stupid. You don't need it to survive. Ridiline is not even in the same galaxy as viagra. Maybe you should have been taking it instead of those blue pills in school?
Yeah, when you're a 70-year-old man with failing hearing, failing eyesight and bad arthritis... that erection is going to improve your quality of life quite a bit.
I have a hard time accepting the fact that I am paying for some guy to get his YA-Ya's off!! If they need it so badly save your money and pay for it yourselves.
I'll endorse the state paying for Viagra ... when they start paying for perscription birth control.
I hope Neil Young will remember, ... Welfare mothers DON'T make better lovers.
Thank you - we'll pay for men to get it up, but not for women when they knock them up - it's ridiculous.
But then would they pay for condoms too?
condoms arent prescribed, they are OTC
I'm talking about perscription stuff, not condoms, which are pretty inexpensive. Perscription birth control is more expensive and often not covered by insurance (if you're lucky enough to have it) - any some of these insurance companies will in fact pay for Viagra and not birth control. And you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who will cover pre-natal care, etc. Birth control is something that every woman should have the right to, and I would support the state covering it.
I knew someone would bring this up, and I agree that birth-control should be covered by health plans, but that doesn't take anything away from the argument that a healthy sex life is also a very important part of life. As I said before, it would be easy to keep sexual predators from receiving prescription viagra, so why is Texas so easily lumping all poor people with pedophiles?
I agree that a healthy sex life can improve overall quality of life, and I also agree that Viagra should also be kept away from sexual predators alone - it's an unfair classist issue, but the wide availability of Viagra for men as opposed to the high cost of perscription birth control is an issue that could come hand in hand with that in terms of classism and deserves just as much attention. I just think that if you're going to argue for men to have the right of sexual function, then women deserve the right to protect themselves against those potential consequences.
Well, there is always PP for sexually active women to turn to, but there are few options to poor men with sexual disfunctions. Other than go to Mexico and get some pills. Maybe this is what the government wants?I just think that if you're going to argue for men to have the right of sexual function, then women deserve the right to protect themselves against those potential consequences.
I'll play along Dan. How much do these little blue pills cost?
Viagra should not be provided on taxpayer money.
1) Not every woman lives within a reasonable distance of a Planned Parenthood - especially women in rural areas - by contrast, most women live near a pharmacy.
2) Even Planned Parenthood charges for birth control in most cases - not to mention a fee for gynecological examinations and tests, etc. (and Planned Parenthood is notorious for bad gynecological experiences)
Planned Parenthood is a great resource for birth control, but not a realistic solution to getting free birth control to the poorer classes.
Yeah, that about sums it up for me. Comparing Viagra with a drug that actualy provides medicinal benefit is ridiculous in my eyes.
In addition, it annoys me that you take these stances Dan. How do you expect the state to provide everyone with a great quality of life, provide all the nessecary services such as education, and not confiscate every dollar we make.
At some point, a line must be drawn as to what the state should provide and what it can actualy afford to provide. Yes, it would be great if the state could make sure every man residing within it had the ability to "get it up" but I'd rather we fix the problems with infrastructure and education before passing out little blue pills.
I agree. My point with the birth control analogy is that in Texas, neither is likely to be provided by the state - which is sad, because Texan taxpayers pay for a whole lot of unintended children that could have been prevented. This country needs to learn the value of preventative care, not just treatment. When comparing sexual dysfunction as a problem to a lack of available birth control, I think the latter obviously deserves more immediate concern. There are a whole lot of other problems to address before "free" Viagra - like classism.
Look, all I'm saying is that this policy is going to encourage the illegal importation of Viagra and other male supplements into the U.S.. Instead of making it harder for predators to get Viagra, what we are doing will drop the street prices of Viagra and make access much easier.In addition, it annoys me that you take these stances Dan. How do you expect the state to provide everyone with a great quality of life, provide all the nessecary services such as education, and not confiscate every dollar we make.
At some point, a line must be drawn as to what the state should provide and what it can actualy afford to provide. Yes, it would be great if the state could make sure every man residing within it had the ability to "get it up" but I'd rather we fix the problems with infrastructure and education before passing out little blue pills.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
