NY Senator Charles Schumer just found out that over 30 3rd-level sex offenders (many had been multiple rapists) were getting Viagra via Medicaid. Is this a good idea? Of course, I’m happy that these criminals are able to experience some fun…after all of those years in jail!
But why should I have to pay for their drugs?
Tell me I’m wrong…a liberal like Schumer opposes this?
Are they getting Medicaid because they are criminals?
So people who have committed crimes and served their time should get different Medicaid benefits after being released?
I dunno; why should I have to pay for Anchorage’s $1.5 million bus stop? (yes, singular)
That said, without knowing more about the details of the Viagra/Medicare thing, it’s hard to comment on it.
HEY. I want a $1.5 million bus stop outside of where I live! My state needs to elect better Senators. 
Sure. Felons are restricted from doing many things that non-felons can do, such as vote or own a firearm. And considering the uses of viagra (it is certainly not a medically necessary drug) it seems stupid to give it to those who have commited sex crimes.
Considering that Debbie Stabenow is one of your Senators, I certainly agree with this statement.
Yes, if it’s a good idea for anyone else on Medicaid. If these criminals have served their time, they should have the same rights as anyone else.
Those restrictions aren’t universally supported either.
First, “sex crimes” can mean anything. Two 17 year old kids who are caught having sex with each other can both be branded sex criminals in some states. That’s not the kind of offense I’d want to follow anyone around for the rest of his life.
And second, I’d say Viagra is a necessity for some people. Medicine isn’t just about keeping people alive, it’s about improving the quality of their lives, and if someone is unable to enjoy sex (one of the most fundamental human behaviors) or even to reproduce, due to something that Bob Dole’s little blue friend can cure, their condition should be taken as seriously as someone who’s lost the use of an eye or a leg.
Just glancing at the thread title, I assumed the question referred to criminals currently in prison. In that case the answer is: Hell yes!
(However the sex offender angle would make that answer offensive… :smack: )
Perhaps not, but I’d say that keeping guns out of the hands of felons is a good idea from a purely practical standpoint. Since sex criminals use their dick as a weapon, then I don’t think the state should be arming them, so to speak, either.
I believe that the state a few miles to your east was prosecuting people for fornication a few years ago, but that’s more of a function of faulty state laws and repressive religious zealots in the South (I notice you’re from Spokane – I was born there and grew up in North Idaho, but I certainly don’t agree with my former home’s southern Mormons and their views on sex).
However, it’s rare that the case you described above is prosecuted as a sex crime. Let’s deal with the vast majority of cases, the ones where evil men rape women, other men, or children.
Sorry, but impotence is not on the same level as losing an eye or a leg. You will have a more difficult time going through life without an arm or a leg than you will without an erection. Some jobs are impossible to do without an arm or a leg, but no job save porn star or gigolo is impossible without an erection. Losing an arm or a leg and being impotent are not in the same ballpark.
Sure, it sucks and if you can afford viagra or levitra, then by all means avail yourself of it. However, I don’t think the State should be paying for it. Hell, I don’t think the State should be paying for the drug for anyone, and I sure don’t think it’s a great use of taxpayer money to pay for an erection drug for those who, in the past, have used their erections to harm others.
Well, if you’re going to compare Viagra to guns, remember that felons don’t get to own guns at all. Should sex offenders be prohibited from using Viagra if they obtain it without Medicaid’s help?
I was thinking more of California, where the age of consent is 18 and there’s no exception when both parties are below it.
But I don’t think it makes sense to just focus on certain cases and ignore the rest. As long as the term “sex offender” still applies equally to people who commit any sex crime, we have to consider the effects of any law that would be applied to sex offenders in general. A 17 year old boy who is caught with his 17 year old girlfriend should not be barred from receiving Viagra for the rest of his life, and any law that would do so is flawed.
OTOH, you’ll have a much easier time producing offspring with a missing eye than with a busted bratwurst. It’s all about priorities, I guess.
Even if you think impotence isn’t such a big deal, just think about the other medical conditions that are covered. A sore throat isn’t on the same level as losing an eye or a leg; neither are herpes or ADD. Should Medicaid stop covering those conditions too?
Is it a legitimate drug used to treat a legitimate medical condition?
Wow!!
That’s ten times more than the bus stop built at our University that was in keeping with it’s unique architecture. :rolleyes:
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere is that fact that government is not some huge, interconnected beast. Different agencies have different purposes and access to different information. Most of the sex offenders mentioned in the article were probably still under supervision of some sort. They were all on the sex offender registry, so they were supervised at least to that extent. But the probation officer, parole officer or the local law enforcement agency handling the registration generally has no reason to know if the sex offender has been prescribed Viagra. And the doctor prescribing the Viagra or the Medicaid employee processing the payment has no reason to know that the patient is a sex offender. Hevesi had to compare Medicaid records to the sex offender registry to find these numbers. But he had access to both. The only real way to keep Medicaid from paying for Viagra for persons on the sex offender registry is to prohibit registered sex offenders from possessing Viagra or a prescription for it. (and it still be far from foolproof). I see that happening within days, at least for those offenders still on probation or parole. Since they haven’t finished serving their time, restrictions are easier to impose on them than on those who have finished their sentences.
“Sex offender” might apply equally to persons who commit any sex crime, but “registered sex offender” doesn’t. In New York, a 17 year old who is caught with his 17 year old girlfriend wouldn’t even have committed a crime. A twenty-one year old who was caught having sex with his fourteen year old girlfriend would have committed a crime- but would not be required to register as a sex offender.
I think that the point most are missing is that the uproar is about 3rd level sex offenders. These are not statutory rapists, these are child rapists and serial molesters. I agree that it would be a gross generalization to restrict all sex offenders from receiving erection-enhancing drugs (and as a pharmacy tech I am amazed that NY Medicaid even paid for viagra). However, in the same way that we punish repeat sex offenders through chemical castration, it seems counter-productive to use government money to supply severe sex offenders with more incentive to commit repeat crimes. If they’d like to buy it on their own, then they can buy Viagra to their hearts content. But we don’t pay for convicted murderers to get new guns when they are released from prison. There are many restrictions put on sex offenders after they are released, such as registering under the sex offender list, and for specifically child sex crimes they are required to stay a certain distance away from children. Limiting the state-funded reciept of sex-enhancing drugs isn’t an infringement on (already limited) rights of convicts.
I would think that very high on the list of ways to reform sex offenders is for them to have a legal sex life. So I see no problem in helping someone with a sexual disfunction in order for them to function in a legal and healthy sexual manner.
If castration is the only thing that stops them being criminal then castration is good. If viagra is the only thing that stops them being criminal then viagra is good.
Is there any correlation between sexual disfunction and sex crime, either in general or in a specific sub group?
They should get it if they are not hardened criminals, in which case they should have gotten a stiff sentence.
I think you have to weigh each case on the medical and legal merits. If they are not a threat to society and if correcting ED would be of medical benefit, then they should have it. Once you pay your debt to society, you’re square with the house as far as I can see and to permanently restrict access to medication constitutes a second punishment for the same crime, or double jeopardy.
*If they are not a threat to society and if correcting ED would be of medical benefit, then they should have it. *
Unfortunately, the very act of labeling them a 3rd level sex offender indicates that they are the most dangerous threat to society. As I said before, these aren’t statutory rapists, they are the most severe degree of sexual offenders.
Whether correcting ED is a medical benefit or not is a completely different argument, so I won’t get into it. I’ll just say that as there are degrees of offenses, there must also obviously be degrees of medical necessity. My only experience with that is through insurance companies, who tend to determine what is and is not a medical necessity. Blood pressure medication is okay, acne cream is maybe not so much so. ED medication is usually not paid for by any insurance company, and most doctors will not sign prior authorization for it because (assumedly) they understand it to be a quality of life issue and not a medical necessity issue.
I don’t know if there are correlations between sexual dysfunction and sexual offenses, but I don’t think it’s really relevant. We aren’t talking about turning non-offenders into offenders through medication, we’re talking about taking any measure necessary to prevent past offenders from repeating their crimes. I’ll return to my handgun example (although it is a little shaky). Maybe Joe G. Gangster is going to use it for target practice, or maybe he’s going to move to the country and shoot skeet. Either way, as a society, we don’t care. We say “you abused your right to have a gun, and therefore we do not condone you continuing to use it, because you have a liklihood of abusing it again.” So, why is it any different to say to the convicted child rapist, “you abused your natural right to have a sex drive and an erection, and now that you can’t achieve it naturally anymore, we will not use the same taxpayer dollars that got you convicted to help you to attain an erection, because you have a liklihood of abusing it again.”
If your only sexual problem is that you can’t get a boner, there are fertility treatments to help with that. Viagra is strictly about the sex. And it’s well established that people can live perfectly normal lives without sex. Ask any married guy.
If you broaden the definition of medical care to include anything that improves one’s quality of life, then Medicare isn’t much different from welfare, is it? My quality of life would improve if my hair wasn’t going gray, or if I had a sailboat. That doesn’t make Grecian Formula and sailboats a form of medicine. Point being that if you don’t draw a reasonable line somewhere, pretty soon the opponents of government-funded health care are going to start trotting out more and more of these “outrages” just like Reagan with his welfare queen.
If they’re still such a dangerous threat, they should still be in prison. But if they’ve served their sentence, we should stop punishing them. IOW, what BobLibDem said.
Well, again, felons aren’t just prohibited from buying a gun with government money; they’re not allowed to own guns period.
If it’s really so dangerous for these sex offenders to get wood, why is no one suggesting that they be banned from possessing Viagra at all? Why should they be allowed to buy Viagra with their own money if we’re so scared about them using their Viagra-enhanced wang as a weapon? Frankly, I’d be more open to that than to restricting Medicaid, because at least it’s a consistent position.
Sure, and you can live a perfectly normal life if you’re colorblind, deaf in one ear, or allergic to pollen. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to alleviate those conditions when possible.
Most people don’t naturally produce hair dye or sailboats. Most men, however, do have the ability to get erections. When they lose that ability, it’s a medical problem.
I think restoring natural human bodily function is quite a reasonable line. Everyone should be able to have working sex organs; not everyone needs to have a sailboat.