No viagra for sex offenders - HC amendment

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/23/first-day-of-health-care-in-senate-low-key-but-racey-amendment-emerges/

Basically the GOP is trying to make the fixit bill go back to the house for a vote to try and kill it...

GOP Senator Looks to Ban Sex Offenders from Getting Viagra



At about 3:30pm today, the Senate started debate on the reconciliation bill. Very low key so far, but amendments are starting to emerge, particularly an eye-popper from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, one of two docs in the chamber.



One of Coburn's amendments would prohibit federal taxpayer money, in the form of subsidies for the poor to buy insurance, from being used by sex offenders to buy drugs like Viagra. It goes further, according to a release from his spokesperson, prohibiting coverage of "Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs."
[...]

First off, i'm really annoyed about buying lifestyle drugs for anyone. Viagra, Rogain, etc. are expensive and entirely optional.

Secondly, lots of "sex offenders" are guilty of things like streaking, urinating in public, or changing your SO's kids diaper when not a biological parent.

The prohibition on abortion drugs is the most worrysome for the simple reason that most, if not all birth control pills act as a moring after pill if taken in overage. Can you imagine if a lot of the population, primarily the poorer people, could no longer get BCP's? - The population explosion would make right after WWII seem tame.

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/dose.html#dose

-t

[brandon]

Wow what an incredibly misleading title...

"GOP Senator Looks to Ban Sex Offenders from Getting Viagra"


Except that's not what he's seeking at all? wtf?

[tangent4ronpaul]

The GOP came up with some new arguments too, including an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that would prohibit sex offenders from getting Viagra prescriptions under federal health programs.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., dismissed that as a "gotcha amendment" designed to be difficult for Democrats to oppose.

The main suspense surrounding this week's debate is whether the fix-it bill can emerge from the Senate unchanged. If it does, it can go straight to the president for his signature, since it's already passed the House. If the Senate changes it even in a minor way, the legislation would have to go back to the House to be passed again, a prospect House leaders are prepared for but say they don't expect.

If there are only minor changes the House would be almost certain to pass the bill again with little trouble, but if Republicans succeed in knocking out a significant provision or attaching a substantive amendment there could be difficulties in the House, where the legislation passed very narrowly Sunday night. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate say they have scrubbed the fix-it bill thoroughly to ensure that will not happen.

Republicans are introducing an array of politically sticky amendments such as Coburn's and another that would stipulate that Obama himself must get health coverage through a new purchasing exchange to be established under the health law. The GOP also is planning to raise points of order under rules requiring that provisions of the fix-it bill must have a budgetary impact. If Republicans argue that something doesn't and the Senate parliamentarian rules in their favor, the provision in question probably would be knocked out.


For Republicans, making it more difficult for Democrats to pass the fix-it bill is about the end of the road for congressional roadblocks against Obama's yearlong overhaul drive. But opponents already have launched a campaign from the outside, with 13 state attorneys general suing Tuesday to overturn the legislation on grounds it is unconstitutional.

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., served notice Tuesday of the GOP's continued campaign against the legislation going into the fall election season. "The slogan will be 'repeal and replace,' 'repeal and replace,'" McConnell said.

[Krugerrand]

The prohibition on abortion drugs is the most worrysome for the simple reason that most, if not all birth control pills act as a moring after pill if taken in overage. Can you imagine if a lot of the population, primarily the poorer people, could no longer get BCP's? - The population explosion would make right after WWII seem tame.

People buy their own aspirin and their own Tylenol. They can buy their own birth control pills.

[Elwar]

The Republicans are holding on to the last thing they have, prolonging this as long as they can and adding a bunch of amendments that they can use against the Democrats in November..."Your senator thinks that rapists and child molesters should get free Viagra from the government"...

All politics at this point but the Dems will have to endure it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

People buy their own aspirin and their own Tylenol. They can buy their own birth control pills.

A lot of people have been unemployed for a long time and are barely scraping by.

This is more of a regulatory issue. You can pick up a bottle of tylenol for $5 OTC, but Rx drugs are expensive because they are Rx. So you have to go to a doc and shell over $70 for a permission slip to be "allowed" to purchase said Rx Drug which is expensive - I believe a months worth of BCP's were going for about $30, but could be mistaken. All told that's $100+, bit steap if you are having problems keeping a roof ver your head and food in your stomach.

To make matters worse, that permission slip is only good for 1 year, then you have to go back to the doc, and pay another $70+ for another one.

To add irony, "the morning after pill" is OTC and costs $25 a pop. It contains the same medicine as BCP's, so there is no good reason BCP's are not OTC. If they were the cost issue woudn't matter much.

-t

[Krugerrand]

A lot of people have been unemployed for a long time and are barely scraping by.

This is more of a regulatory issue. You can pick up a bottle of tylenol for $5 OTC, but Rx drugs are expensive because they are Rx. So you have to go to a doc and shell over $70 for a permission slip to be "allowed" to purchase said Rx Drug which is expensive - I believe a months worth of BCP's were going for about $30, but could be mistaken. All told that's $100+, bit steap if you are having problems keeping a roof ver your head and food in your stomach.

To make matters worse, that permission slip is only good for 1 year, then you have to go back to the doc, and pay another $70+ for another one.

To add irony, "the morning after pill" is OTC and costs $25 a pop. It contains the same medicine as BCP's, so there is no good reason BCP's are not OTC. If they were the cost issue woudn't matter much.

-t

All good points. Look at how much clearitan used to cost with a prescription and now it's dirt cheap and with generic version even cheaper than dirt. The free market is an amazing thing. I think most Birth Control Pills should be over the counter - or at the very minimum dropped from insurance coverage. That would drastically lower the price.

Still - actions have consequences. People need to be responsible for themselves. Don't ask me to buy their birth control pills.

[tangent4ronpaul]

All good points. Look at how much clearitan used to cost with a prescription and now it's dirt cheap and with generic version even cheaper than dirt. The free market is an amazing thing. I think most Birth Control Pills should be over the counter - or at the very minimum dropped from insurance coverage. That would drastically lower the price.

Still - actions have consequences. People need to be responsible for themselves. Don't ask me to buy their birth control pills.

true, but I try to put it in perspective. Given that the government will rob you and make you do one or the other, would you rather:

1) buy the BCP's
or
2) pay $18,000 per delivery, 18 years of food, clothing, education, health care, section 8 housing, etc. for Ms Welfare Moma's 5 brats?

Also keep in mind that a lot of Women get pregnant and trapped by getting pregnant too soon. In many cases, just getting through school or getting married first keeps them off the welfare rolls.

This really gets people stuck in dependence - daycare or making it through college get difficult, men don't want them because they have a kid and the more kids they pop out, the more the government gives them.

-t