U.S. Providing Viagra For Sex Offenders

[gaijindabe]

Rapists and other offenders convicted of the most serious sex crimes have been able, for the past several years, to get the erection-enhancement wonder drug Viagra for free through Medicaid, the government-financed health-insurance program for the poor.

http://www.nysun.com/article/14217

[chuckw951]

This doesn't really surprise me, no checks have been installed to prevent it and implemenation could be difficult. Is the solution to require background checks for access to health care? Otherwise how would a doctor know if you are a bad guy when they write the prescription?

[Superman]

See, that's how you conservatives are. Always asking for more gubmint regulation.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

48 states already track sex offenders...and Medicaid is a gubmint agency already, isn't it?

Shouldn't the gov't agencies be able to talk to each other?

Kind of like the whole FBI/CIA/NSA thing?

Of course, if they just executed sex offenders like they should have in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem.

[928ram]

See, that's how you conservatives are. Always asking for more gubmint regulation.

So the liberal approach would then be to not hurt their feeling or trample on their civil right by making sure they has boners in hand when applying thier trade??

[chuckw951]

Well hindsight is 20/20. This is one of those "unintended consequences" of a policy change. I'm still not sure why Medicaid needs to pay for Viagra. You would think that government agencies could "talk to each other." I just wonder how such a system will be "operationalized."

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by Superman
See, that's how you conservatives are. Always asking for more gubmint regulation.

Supe, even you should be able to see the problem with giving a sex offender the right "tool" to commit the crime again.

[Superman]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Supe, even you should be able to see the problem with giving a sex offender the right "tool" to commit the crime again.

Certainly I do. I would think that (assuming we want Medicaid to pay for anybody's Viagra prescription), we ought to not provide this drug to sex offenders. No disagreement here. I was simply chortling at the implications of what is being suggested. First, someone would need to look into what Medicaid does pay for. Then the question of whether these services can be arbitrarily denied to a particular group (sex offenders). The group would need to be defined (what do we mean by "sex offender"). If a law change is necessary, we'd have to get that done.

Now, assuming that Medicaid patients are entitled to Viagra but sex offenders are not, then someone will have to figure out how to get a reliable list of sex offenders (which would have to come from dozens and possibly hundreds of thousands of sources such as court decisions, etc). How to incorporate that list into the Medicaid "system" where the prescription claims can be denied. This increase in denials, and the setup for this whole system and enforcement staff if necessary, is going to cost ya. This is work. It is "workload" and the agencies responsible for getting it done would include a fiscal request for the staff to carry it out.

So yeah, I'm all for it and we should do it the most efficient way possible. But I'm still chortling. Because you guys are asking something from the Gubmint. You're asking for another layer of regulation, and administration of that regulation. It is the cumulative cost of these wanted, needed, expected services that comprises the "gubmint waste" that you guys spend so much time railing against. Funny. Funny that you hate something and at the same time rely on it and support it.

Questions posed to you conservatives from Gubmint:

Well? Which is it? Do you want society protected from sex offenders? Are you willing to pay for it? Will you respect me in the morning?

[tabs]

I'm not going to touch this one with my 10 foot pole....

[RickM]

Originally posted by tabs
I'm not going to touch this one with my 10 foot pole....

10 foot?...You must've ODed on your Viagra.

[targa911S]

It must be a list of sex offenders with limp di**s though. who is gonna do that homework?

[bryanthompson]

Supe, surely there's already a piece of medicaid in place to oversee some part of this process. My grandpa can't just go get any medications he feels like and expect medacaid to pay for it. I don't buy the idea that this one bit of checking would cause such a massive workload on the overburdened gubmint [sic] employees that we'd need to throw more money at it. Someone's already doing the job somewhere, just add this line to their job discription, and boom, done. endo story.

Of course... it is a little more complicated than that... As soon as we start digging into the medical files of sex offenders, we'd have such stand-up organizations as nambla filing lawsuits. I think the burden needs to be upon doctors to know their patients, and not even be able to perscribe the meds. Doctors already have the medical info, they know who the limp-dicked offenders are if they are treating one.

[Superman]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Supe, surely there's already a piece of medicaid in place to oversee some part of this process. My grandpa can't just go get any medications he feels like and expect medacaid to pay for it. I don't buy the idea that this one bit of checking would cause such a massive workload on the overburdened gubmint [sic] employees that we'd need to throw more money at it. Someone's already doing the job somewhere, just add this line to their job discription, and boom, done. endo story.

Of course... it is a little more complicated than that... As soon as we start digging into the medical files of sex offenders, we'd have such stand-up organizations as nambla filing lawsuits. I think the burden needs to be upon doctors to know their patients, and not even be able to perscribe the meds. Doctors already have the medical info, they know who the limp-dicked offenders are if they are treating one.

You're gonna have to forgive me for this (or not), but this is naive. I'll grant that there may be administrative mechanisms in place, computer systems for example, or Medicaid claim denial systems that could simply be tweeked to include this new regulation....so it may be that the ongoing administrative burden would be minimized. But make no mistake about it, this is not just something where some bureaucrat just reaches to a switch marked "No Viagra for Sex Offenders," flips the switch and goes back to sleep. for example, you mention that maybe the doctors should be responsible. I doubt if it can work that way, and even if it were possible, the doctors would refuse. Their job is to practice medicine, not law enforcement. This is a Medicaid question, not a health care question.

Also, compiling lists of offenders and keeping it current is going to cause burden. If there were already a list of sex offenders out there, updated daily by some other staff, then fine. But I'll be there is not. Individual states do keep lists. So, someone could place calls to those states and discuss what form their list takes, how often is it updated, is this a list of the "sex offenders" defined in the new Medicaid regulation (if not, then this complexifies the administrative burden GREATLY), how can the list be shared, what releases/permissions will be required, etc.

If you don't have any idea how gubmint is run, and you hate gubmint, then the administrative challenges you are suggesting are going to seem like "just another bunch of gubmint bull****." But if you're more of a realist and you do understand what it takes to actually get stuff done, like on a national level (thousands of names on that list), particularly where it comes to peoples rights and the denial thereof, then you will understand that this idea is indeed a logical, reasonable request for government services, but that it's not free. Freedom is not free, and neither is the stuff we ask the government to accomplish.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Last I heard Medicaid (NOT Medicare) was partly state funded. State agencies tracking sex offenders should be able to talk to state agencies managing Medicaid.

But, again, I say we just hang the sex offenders and be done with it. Problem solved.

Oh, wait, I thought it was society's fault and that we were supposed to "rehabilitate" them.

[bryanthompson]

But make no mistake about it, this is not just something where some bureaucrat just reaches to a switch marked "No Viagra for Sex Offenders," flips the switch and goes back to sleep

I went to the dentist today, and the lady at the front desk was able to look up for me what was covered under my health insurance, and she could tell me what I would have to pay out of pocket. The doctor couldn't tell me that, and I would even doubt that the doc could run her software that gives the information. Like you said it's not the doctor's job... maybe they could add a little checkbox to her program that would make simple.

Look, this isn't complicated. You just gotta figure out the easiest place to wedge in a "if (user == sexOffender) { giveViagra=false; }"

Why can't the real world be in Java.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Superman


Also, compiling lists of offenders and keeping it current is going to cause burden. If there were already a list of sex offenders out there, updated daily by some other staff, then fine.

"According to the state comptroller, Alan Hevesi, who announced the finding yesterday, 198 Level 3 sex offenders in the state, who have been convicted of such crimes as child molestation and rape..."

They have the lists - these are the pervs who should NEVER get out - they just cant bother to cross check.

[jkarolyi]

Nobody has asked the question...why are our tax dollars buying Viagra for ANYONE, much less sex offenders? If someone is too poor to pay for medical care, I'm sorry, but its not too much to ask for them to go without a woody. I've heard that Medicaid also pays for welfare recipients to recieve ultra-expensive fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization as well! Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Medicaid money should be used for critical medical care only. This disgusting waste is just one more reason for people to hate paying taxes.

[Superman]

Well, the simpler it is to administer then the less gubmint regulation and cost you are requesting. And maybe it could be done with just a few additional resources. But make no mistake about it, resources will be expended to initiate and administer this. If it is states that keep these lists, then.....

* What states do not? (there are probably some who do not, then one question that pops up is whether sex offnders can get Viagra in those states....I guess the answer is "yes" unless you give those states some money to get in the game of compiling and maintaining lists)
* Are states definitions of "sex offender" all the same? My guess is "no." If my guess is correct, then you'll be administering this program to apples in one state, and oranges in another. Clearly unlawful to do that.
* How will these states share information? Are their computer systems compatible?
* Who will compile the Federal (rollup) version of this list. What gubmint agency?

*Where will the funds for this come from?

[dd74]

Originally posted by Superman
...you mention that maybe the doctors should be responsible. I doubt if it can work that way, and even if it were possible, the doctors would refuse.

Would refuse what? To hand the medication over or do a background check on a person? The problem, in my view, is the line of defense as to whether these animals perpetuate their crimes or not, has to begin with someone, so why not the doctors? As Blue says, government is ineffective in many ways, which is a problem in and of itself that spills over into this issue. Yes, now the loophole is being argued as to whether gov't purchased Viagra should not be allowed to these beasts. However, who knows how long that will take and how many lawsuits will have to be contended with before there is a resolution. What the doctors need is to be given the option to pay close attention to something like scanusa.com, and then if they knowingly prescribe Viagra to a sex offender, they should be held accountable. In my view it can work that way.

[jyl]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Look, this isn't complicated. You just gotta figure out the easiest place to wedge in a "if (user == sexOffender) { giveViagra=false; }"

Why can't the real world be in Java.

Alas, the real world is lots more complicated than Java.

But since we are tossing around quick and easy solutions here, mine is to entirely exclude Viagra from Medicaid benefits. There's so many people aren't getting basic health care and/or treatment for critical conditions, that spending public money on Viagra and similar treatments seems like an unaffordable luxury. No doubt one that the drug companies have lobbied for.