Quote:
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?