That’s exactly my point, there are certain limitations and restrictions that are not lifted from convicted felons, even after they have served their time, but that isn’t considered ‘prolonged punishment for crimes that have already been rectified’, is it?
So if we expand that to include child sex offenders not being allowed within so many feet of children, and not using taxpayer dollars to buy erectile disfunction medication, where is the difference? We already have measures in place that by your argument prolongs punishment for convicted felons. Why is this that much different than not allowing convicts to buy guns?
Yes, actually, I think it is.
I thought I’d explained the difference. Let me try again.
Convicted felons are not allowed to possess guns at all. (Whether or not their crime involved guns in the first place… but let’s ignore that.)
Convicted sex offenders are allowed to use Viagra. The only objection I’ve seen here is that they shouldn’t use tax dollars to obtain it.
If you’re going to claim that a sex offender curing his impotence is like a felon owning a gun, then why not go all the way and say sex offenders with impotence should be forced to live with it forever, whether or not they can afford to buy Viagra on their own? After all, you wouldn’t let a felon buy a gun with his own money, would you? As far as I can tell, either you don’t believe a sex offender with an erection is really as dangerous as a felon with a gun (in which case I commend you for being reasonable), or you just want to chip away at government-funded health care. In either case, your argument is inconsistent.
That isn’t really a justification for adding more measures that do so. One might even argue that the existing measures go too far.
I used to have the natural ability to grow black hair all over my scalp, and now I don’t, but that’s not the point.
Whether something is natural or unnatural is, it seems to me, an arbitrary distinction and no basis for deciding whether the government ought to pay for it. Physical decline and illness are both natural parts of human aging. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the government paying for Viagra if a guy is below a certain age and has some underlying medical condition causing the impotence that can’t otherwise be treated. But you have to draw the line somewhere. An inability or refusal to “draw the line” limiting what a government program will pay for is a guarantee that it will become unpopular.
If you lost it at an abnormally early age, I’d have no problem calling that a medical condition and using my tax dollars to alleviate it.
Exactly. We don’t know how old these guys are who are receiving government-funded Viagra. If someone is, say, 30 years old and already has erectile dysfunction, I say give him the pills no matter what might be on his criminal record. If he’s 80, well, that’s part of being old.
If he wants medical treatment to be in better health than the average person in his situation, he can pay for it himself, but if he needs treatment to be in average health, Medicaid should cover it.
Exactly my point, there are certain rights and priveleges that are removed when one becomes a convicted felon. That is my only objection, that they shouldn’t use taxpayers money to get it.
I didn’t go all the way and say that they should be forced to live with it forever, you did. I just said don’t take a quality of life issue of not being able to get an erection and make it a medical necessity, and then say that we’re unfairly punishing convicted sex offenders by not forcing taxpayers to pay for them to get their sex drive back. If they’d like to buy it on their own, then so be it. But I won’t pay for it.
Who cares if they can’t afford it? Millions of men whose insurances don’t pay for Viagra and Levitra and Cialis buy it anyway, they just pay out of pocket. And no, I wouldn’t let a felon buy a gun with his own money because the law makes it illegal for him to own it through whatever means.
Of course a sex offender with an erection is as dangerous as a felon with a gun. You don’t know that he’s going to go out and hurt someone, but reasonable assumption based on past experiences tells you to keep an eye out.
And I fail to see how you’d assume that I’d like to chip away at government-funded health care. I think that it’s a great idea, and would work well if correctly implemented. Unfortunately I don’t see the purpose in rewarding equally the citizens that have demonstrated an inability to follow the rules and those that have shown no indication of straying from them.
Now you’re straying from the original argument into the idea of universal healthcare. The original argument was whether or not convicted sex offenders should have their Viagra paid for by state Medicaid, not if everybody should. Therefore it is very relevant what is on his criminal record, because we are talking about a person who was convicted of crimes directly linked to their inability to control their libido. Various other psychological issues may be indicated, and if there is medication to treat that then I wholeheartedly believe the state should pay for the rehabilitation, as it does pay for prisons, parole boards, and sex offender registries. But if a person was convicted of a crime related to libido, then Viagra can hardly be seen as rehabilitative. As I see it, taxpayer money should go only as far to rehabilitate a felon to be a working and law-abiding member of society. Past that lies in the area of personal responsibility. IMO, a healthy happy sex life lies within the area of personal responsibility.
And yet you seem perfectly happy to let sex offenders have erections (paying for treatment out of pocket if necessary), even though you wouldn’t let a felon have a gun. If you really believe they’re equally dangerous, how do you explain the contradiction? You still haven’t answered this.
I think you misunderstood. I meant that if someone already qualifies for Medicaid, his criminal record shouldn’t affect what treatment he can get.
Then we’ll just have to disagree. Once his sentence is served, IMO, his debt to society is repaid, at least regarding basic human dignities like this one.
[QUOTE=Mr2001]
And yet you seem perfectly happy to let sex offenders have erections (paying for treatment out of pocket if necessary), even though you wouldn’t let a felon have a gun. If you really believe they’re equally dangerous, how do you explain the contradiction? You still haven’t answered this.
[quote]
You’re right, because as the current laws stand, it is illegal for a felon to have a gun but not an erection. And aren’t you the one who said, and I quote, “That isn’t really a justification for adding more measures that do so. One might even argue that the existing measures go too far.” so I find difficulty accepting that you can’t believe that I wouldn’t want to create more measures. So stop trying to bait me into saying that. I believe that they are both dangerous, maybe they are not equally dangerous but they are both dangerous. And because sex offenders with medically assisted erections pose a threat, but not always, I don’t see it necessary to prevent all sex offenders from having erectile disfunction medication. I just don’t see the need for me to pay for it.
I understand that. But I believe that if the treatment lies outside of what is medically necessary to sustain life, then it should be a matter of personal, rather than state, responsibility.
How are we denying him of a basic human dignity? We aren’t preventing him from having natural erections, merely refusing to chemically assist him. If he’d like to seek medical treatment, do it on his own dollar if it’s that important. Otherwise I’m petitioning Colorado Medicaid to send me on a cruise, on the grounds that it will improve the quality of my life by alleviating stress and allowing me time to escape from the polluted city air that clogs my lungs, and do some scuba diving.
As the current laws stand, Medicaid apparently covers Viagra, even for sex offenders. If you want to change that, then you do want to create more measures. This business about whether it’s currently legal or illegal is a copout, since you’re clearly open to changing the law anyway.
Medical care to restore someone to at least average health, when possible, is a basic human dignity. That’s why Medicaid exists in the first place: to provide that dignity to people who can’t provide it for themselves.
I think you know the difference between a free vacation and medical treatment that restores a natural bodily function.
If you can make age one of the factors, why not also whether the person is a rapist?
I think that criterion has many, many problems. If you take the view that “average” really means the statistical average, then it means Medicare is responsible for treating half the population for any given quantifiable physical parameter. That would represent a huge increase in Medicare’s budget. It would mean, for instance, that every man who is balder than average would be entitled to government-funded hair growth treatments. That is half of all men.
Conversely, the statistically average blood pressure is probably too high. In this case, using “average” as a criterion means that many people with high blood pressure will go untreated.
Then there’s the question of how you define “average”. Going back to the baldness example, do you take the population to be all men? Or do you include women? If a 50-year-old woman went as bald as the average 50-year-old man, she would probably be extremely distressed. Do you break it down by age? What about race - is baldness more prevalent in some races than others? Also, some men are really bothered by losing their hair (toupees, hair plugs, combovers, etc.) while some don’t seem to care. Do you factor in the person’s social situation to make treatments more available for men who are more bothered by baldness? Would you have to give bonus points to a guy who’s trying to find a girlfriend, over a guy who is out of the market? It’s easy to see how “average” is no longer an objective quantity but is weighed down with value judgments as to what is a relevant factor and what is not.
I don’t think that in general there are any easy answers. However, government-funded Viagra for convicted rapists is an easy one - it’s ridiculous and indefensible.
The government shouldn’t be buying viagra for anybody. The government certainly shouldn’t be buying viagra for convicted sex criminals! That this is worthy of debate on the SDMB is truly disturbing.
Sex offenders aside, I am curious as to why you feel this way. Are you against all Medicaid support from the government, or just Viagra? Why shouldn’t erectile dysfunction be treated like any other disorder that is covered by Medicaid?
Watch out, I’m going to start sounding like a libertarian…
Yes, sort of. Because it’s not essential.
I’d love it if we could do some serious reform of Medicaid. It’s a bloated and wasteful program that ultimately results in less quality and more expense in health care for all of us. However, if we do have to have such a program than it should at least be limited to essential services. Viagra is a drug used by many people for simply recreational use. Even if medically needed for legitimate erectile dystfunction, it’s not lifesaving or required. If someone needs it, then let them pay for it.
And to think I believed conservatives supported family values. Do you believe a healthy sex life is not essential to good mental and physical health? Or should Medicaid be limited to stitching wounds and splinting broken bones?
I’m not debating what measures should be put into place, how they should be enacted, or what the laws should say. As far as I can tell we are debating the morality of supplying them with it in the first place. I say that it is not within the realm of what the state is required to do to rehabilitate criminals to provide sex offenders with Viagra. If everyone else gets it, that’s fine. Unfortunately the state doesn’t see convicted felons as “the same as everyone else” in many, many regards when it comes to the rights and restrictions placed on them.
As to who opened the door to the legality, of course it isn’t already illegal, where that was pulled into it was with my comparison between the other restrictions we place on convicts and how this can be seen as a parallel to that. It shows precendence. If you’re trying to convince me that this is a violation of their rights then I’m not buying it. As far as I’m concerned, criminals do not have the same rights as you or I do (assuming you aren’t a convicted felon). And frankly the state agrees with me.
I think you’re overreaching here. I think I have more experience in the arena of state Medicaid, so I’ll let you know that Medicaid is not at all in the business of ‘restoring human dignity’, though it is a pretty thought. Medicaid is in the business of paying for basic medical care, regardless of your criminal record, and only if you fulfill various other requirements based on annual income, etc. Unfortunately, there are a myriad of things that they refuse to pay for on whatever grounds they want, they really get to choose whatever they want to pay for. Really brand name drugs are more thoroughly tested for their efectiveness than the percentage of effectiveness demonstrated by their A-B or generic equivalent, which can be attributed to better health and more ‘human dignity’, however state Medicaid doesn’t care. They pay for generic drugs, and if you want the brand you pay out of pocket.
I hope you uderstand it was in jest. But as I’ve said before with state Medicaid, they don’t tend to care what will increase your quality of life or make you a better person with ‘more human dignity’. I am really shocked that NY state Medicaid pays for it, I know that CO Medicaid doesn’t. But that’s neither here nor there.
:rolleyes:
I hate how any argument where a conservative tries to limit the scope of government can simply be turned into a lack of caring.
Proposal: From now on all postal carriers will bring food and medicine to needy babies.
Conservatives: What? Who’s going to deliver the mail?
Proposers: Why do you hate babies?
Look, it’s really very simple: The best way for most things to get done is by the private sector, not by the federal government. It’s more efficient, more fair and just generally makes more sense. This can apply from just about anything from sneakers to airlines to hard ons.
Saying that I don’t want the government in the sneaker business and I’d rather have Nikes doesn’t mean I hate sneakers. Saying I don’t want the government in the viagra business doesn’t mean I hate those suffering from erectile dysfunction.
If you want the pills you can: A.) Pay for them yourself. or B.) Get insurance that will pay for them. or C.) Get a job that has insurance that will pay for them.
As long as people are getting them from the government, they won’t bother with these options. But, if they had to they would.
If somebody is bleeding to death or has cancer then they will get treatment on my taxpayer dime. If they have heartburn or a headache or want some happy penis pills then they should figure out a way to get them for themselves.
Debaser, I agree with you. Medicare should not be supplying anyone with Viagra.
Medicare Preventative Benefits
Not to downplay the effects of erectile dysfunction, but is Viagra and other ‘hard-on’ pills as medically necessary as insulin?
Because age, in this case, determines whether the patient’s condition is normal (something everyone expects to live with) or abnormal. Hair loss is normal at age 60, not so normal at age 20. Same with erectile dysfunction. However, one’s criminal record has no effect on whether a certain medical condition is normal or not.
Clearly, that definition wouldn’t work for everything. I’m not going to define what “average health” means for every possible condition, because I’m not a doctor, and I think you know what I mean anyway. A 5’9" tall man and a 6’3" tall man are both within an average range of height… a 3 foot tall man is not.
Yes, no, yes, yes (if true), no, no.
You’re making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Do you really think that when a patient in his 20s or 30s goes into a doctor’s office complaining of erectile problems, the doctor says “Well, you know, some men twice your age have the same problem, so your condition is perfectly normal. I say just learn to live with it. In fact, half the population doesn’t have a penis at all, so you should count yourself lucky!” Of course not. There are certainly some fringe cases where you can argue that a problem is normal, but this isn’t one of them.
I won’t disagree with that, but it seems irrelevant.
Paving the streets, checking restaurants for health code violations, and many, many other government services have nothing to do with rehabilitating criminals, but the government isn’t just there to rehabilitate criminals. Even when criminals benefit from having paved roads or safe restaurants, no one has to defend that as being part of their rehabilitation.
Or do you think criminals shouldn’t benefit from any government programs other than whatever rehabilitation the prison system can provide?
Well, it seems the state agrees with me that even criminals should be able to get Viagra from Medicaid if they need it. You really aren’t gaining anything by highlighting the parts of the law that back up your position and ignoring the parts that contradict it.
And I say the purpose of that basic medical care is to provide basic human dignity - recognition that even people who can’t afford it deserve to be treated when they have medical problems.
Good. Neither do I, in the context of this thread, except when the thing that will increase your quality of life is a legitimate medical treatment.
So, by “average” you mean something like “better than (x standard deviations worse than the mean)”? The choice of x involves a value judgment. And I say, since value judgments are unavoidable, Viagra for rapists is right out.
The impression I have is that the rapists getting government-funded Viagra was a loophole that had not been considered when the law was written. The state is only reimbursing the prescriptions because the current law says it has to. I looked at stories from CNN, CBS, and the Washington Post and nowhere does anyone come out in active support of government-funded Viagra for rapists. The only debate is how to close the loophole as soon as possible.
You sound exactly like a gun nut who cannot perceive the need to weigh constitutional freedoms against the desire to stop homicidal maniacs from getting machine guns. You’re in effect saying that it is an affront to human dignity not to give free Viagra to rapists.
Providing basic human dignity is a noble and proper goal, but it has to be weighed against other goals, one of which is not to enhance the sexual potency of rapists at taxpayer expense. Also, consider, from the standpoint of human dignity, a person who has been raped. It’s pretty undignifying and disrespectful to that person to say, “Hey, sorry about what happened to you, but that guy who raped you - we’re going to be taking some of your tax money to help him enjoy sex more.”
I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from here. Are you saying that the goal of enhancing people’s quality of life is so important that it must be adhered to even if it occasionally results in undesirable outcomes? Or are you saying that government-funded Viagra for rapists is actually desirable?
It seems debatable whether a convicted rapist should be able to get Viagra at all. I’m not sure what my position on that would be. But at taxpayer expense? Ridiculous.
Exactly. It’s too silly to be even worthy of a debate.
In that case, Viagra for everyone is right out, unless you have some evidence that impotence is far more common in rapists (such that it could be considered average health for them but not the rest of the population).
If they legitimately need it and would otherwise qualify for free medication.
Uh huh.
Now you consider a person who has been battered. How would they feel if you told them, “Hey, sorry about what happened to you, but that guy who beat you up - he fell down the stairs at a subway terminal and broke several bones, and we’re going to be taking some of your tax money to help him regain the use of his arms.” Or even, “He had a heart attack and we’re going to be taking some of your tax money to help him stay alive.” Would they feel disrespected? Probably. Is that a good reason to deny the guy treatment? No. No one gets an emotional veto over someone else’s health care.
Thankfully, our medical system isn’t run by those people who have an interest in seeing certain patients suffer. If you have a broken limb, you deserve to have it treated, even if you used that limb in the past to do someone harm.
I don’t think government-funded Viagra for criminals who have served out their sentences is undesirable enough to warrant making exceptions to our health care programs. If someone wants to reoffend, he’ll do it whether he has Viagra or not (use your imagination). If not, he deserves to have his medical problems treated just like anyone else.
As for your first point… yes, frankly, I think it’s more important to treat people with medical problems than to deny treatment to an entire group just because some fraction of them might use their new health to do something undesirable. We don’t deny people treatment for their arms just because they’ve used their arms to commit crimes in the past (AFAIK); why should this appendage be any different?