Then Enlighten Me Oh Wise One.....:rolleyes:

How about you post the passage in the health Care bill that gives the Sex Offenders Viagra......instead of being a #^&#^&#^&#^&

I need some Business Management software for my rental company. Wanna help me out?

Unfortunately, we don't roll that way :biglaugh:

-spence

He's the master of the non sequitur...

-spence

how about pulling your head out of your ass and checking the congressional record from yesterday to see what all of the fuss was about... instead of whining like a welfare recipient to give you what you want when you could just as easily get on you own? maybe you should expand your information source for politics beyond a fishing website:uhuh:

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports:

Here's where we are with the health reform bill. One of the beautiful things for Democrats about the budget reconciliation process they are using to tweak their health reform law is that the bill is not filibusterable.

The beautiful thing for Republicans is that any old amendment can be offered and get a vote.

Sen. Tom Coburn has released his list of amendments to the reconciliation bill. Democrats will try to defeat all the amendments, if possible, to avoid another vote in the House.

But Republicans will make that goal as tough as possible.

So the first amendment Coburn is offering is pretty tough, politically, to disagree with.

It would ban the government from covering erectile dysfunction medication for sex offenders who get their insurance on the exchanges.

While banning the coverage of those drugs would save money, it would also create new policy. And under budget rules, would probably need 60 votes instead of the 51 usually required during budget reconciliation.

Either way, Democrats will probably have to plug their noses and vote against the amendment. Then they’ll be on record with the vote.

You can imagine the campaign commercial… cue scary music… “Politician X wants to give Viagra to sex offenders…”

The full list of Coburn’s amendments (he’s only one Senator, expect many many more) is below, as released by his office:

No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders – This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs. (Note: the creation of exchanges could allow sex offenders to receive taxpayer-funded Viagra and other ED drugs unless Congress expressly prohibits this action – see additional background attached)

selling rubber models of the Starship Enterprise must be a tough gig outside of the Trekkie conventions...:rotf2:

seriously, God bless you and Mrs. Spencer...hope it's nothing but smooth sailing till the blessed event and after that as well, I miss the days of diapers and wipes and spit up...

I do have some baby name suggestions:

Che' Spencer
Obama Bin Spencer
Barack "Barry" Hussein Spencer
this one will certainly be back in vogue in time for your birth, I hear it's making a big comeback in Russia....Stalin Spencer, that would be chic..like Dakota or something like that...
Spence Alynski Junior

and for a girl
Elinor Rodam Spencer
Evita Spencer

Wow, what a dodge...

I can't believe you couldn't even scrape up a single link.

-spence

you speak too soon...if he was half paying attention to the news, I wouldn't have to waste my time...oh crap...I'm starting to sound like you...

I think you missed the point of TDF's post...

-spence

no, actually...he missed the point of the thread..."I just heard that sex offenders will be eligible for Viagra under Obama Health Care?"

and then he called me a bad word....which according to the dems. these days constitutes threats of violence...but I forgive him...

From what I understand, if it's a girl, my wife already has a name that I'm not allowed to know and I have no say.

In return, if it's a boy, I get the pick the name.

Which basically means she'll veto whatever I say.

-spence

Your telling me, my wife sells & implements ORACLE so I know the territory & the revenue horizon.

Boy Name: Saul Alinsky Spencer

When is the little bundle of joy due? Are you going to find out the gender or will you be suprised?

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2: been there...that's funny

This little tidbit isn't even listed in the huffington post article you referenced.....

this is what I see in that article.....

The idea is that by securing even a slight adjustment in the language, the Senate will have to send the bill back to the House of Representatives for reconsideration. Drawing out the process makes it more likely for it to be tripped up.

Which tells me that he is entering this amendment just to bog down the legislative process....not because it has any basis in fact...and if it does i asked to see it.

and as far as me being a welfare recipient, you can kiss my ass on that one.....

ohhh....wassamadda Kevin....Hopey Change isn't all you'd hoped and dreamed??? I'll go R-E-A-L-L-Y ....S-L-O-W for you because I'm feeling generous and it almost Holy week so I should try to help those in need....."the question" was whether sex offenders would be eligible for Viagara and other such drugs under the new healthcare reform law"....are you following me??? the answer is, as constituted ....yes....and I provided proof to you that there are concerns over this on both sides by citing the Huffington Post and AbC News so that you could not accuse me of using right wing propoganda sources....Coburn ( a doctor I believe) proposed an ammendment to prohibit the above....it was a valid ammendment to address a valid issue, the dems decided to vote it down...you can invent whatever reasons to satisfy you own leanings but that's what happened... you could very well have figured this out on your own if you'd read slowly, I'd hope...well, maybe not....

funny ... after all of the Political Whoring and utter Perversion of our Legislative process that occured to get this healthcare disaster passsed through...this is what upsets you???? yikes....

a fool and his Liberty...are soon parted...

Never Mind...I'm arguing with a %$%$%$%$ing Moron

see...you sound like an ungrateful welfare recipient:uhuh:

you demand that I provide you free education, you don't pay attention...and then you complain about the quality of that free education and insult the system, what more can I do for you?

it was a perfectly legitimate and sensible ammendment, and incidentally, that's what the process is for....perhaps if the dems were not shoving huge legislation through and saying things like "we need to pass it so that you can find out what's in it" Nazi Pelosi...it would all make much more sense to you:uhuh:

I forgive you for the moron insult...

The amendment is sensible only if your intent is to impede the entire legislation. Leave it to a conservative to propose additional useless legislation while at the very same time demonizing the expansion of government!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is the baby on the way thing affecting your judgement even more than usual, Spence? There are ammendments like this put in every big bill by both parties. The Dems have filled this 2700 page bill with more pork that a redneck 4th of July pig roast, yet you find fault with one conservative ammendment which most people here seem to be in agreement with? To quote a wise man, your post is "Lame".

be nice to Spence, he's probably suffering terribly from sympathy pain/cramping and morning sickness:rotf2:

Yet again, you're completely missing the point.

-spence

No, you're wrong. I got the point. He's slowing down a bill that he doesn't like by picking out one amendment in it. It's not a new concept in politics. Dems and Repubs have been doing it for years. I'm suprised you're have trouble understanding it in this instance, though. I figured you to be bright enough to pick up on that.

I think we moved past your point above on page 1.

The issue isn't about the amendment, it's the irony that a "conservative" would propose additional and unnecessary legislation to create more government...

But I know you know that and are just being a pain, sort of like Coburn.

-spence

How does barring something from this overloaded bill create more government?

You're creating another law to be enforced. Is the government going to run background checks on everyone who gets insurance, or perform audits on prescriptions by sex offenders to see if the law has been broken?

If not...why have the law? It could never be enforced.

-spence

Wouldn't the government just mandate that responsibility to the insurance providers?

Most laws are not 100% enforceable. Especially true of cheating on the government. Catching a percentage of cheats seems to be the acceptable mode of discouraging the law-breakers. If the responsibilty were to fall to the Government, the new IRS enforcers will just have a teeny blip of extra responsibility added to the mountain of junk the bill gives them to climb.

Besides, this "extra" government would "save" the tax payers money, just as how the HC bill will "lower costs.":biglaugh:

Passing the cost of regulation onto the consumer? Still not very conservative...

This assumes there's a problem to begin with. I'd be curious to know how much federally funded sex drugs actually make it to sex offenders. It's already verboten under Medicare and Medicaid.

Oh wait, this actually isn't the problem! Perhaps the bill is really an attempt to limit abortion drugs.

-spence

No, we didn't move past my point on page one.

Yes, I'm being a pain. But not like Coburn, more like you.:love:

with the way that anyone with a shread of decency is running from Obama and the democrats...they're gonna need every sex offender, pervert and illegal alien that they can muster up in November:rotf2:

Illegal aliens..
 

Watch and see how Obama tries to "LEGALIZE" Illegal aliens BEFORE his election in 2012.....30 million extra votes will come in real handy by then for this scumbag.

Oh wait, the whole Health Care Bill is the problem. It doesn't lower costs. It raises premiums. It raises taxes. It costs taxpayers too much. Except for collecting taxes, it doesn't go into effect for four years, and still won't insure all those it was supposed to cover. It is more an income redistribution than it is a "health" bill. It is unconstitutional. It is FAR more unnecessary and a FAR greater annoyance than Coburns little stuff. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS. This should be in the domain of the States and the private sector.

I believe I simply found it ironic.

Huh?

It's projected by the CBO to slow the increase and therefore deliver deficit reduction. I think there's a good argument that some of these savings are at the expense of State budgets.

On the wealthy and the HC industry. If it really delivers deficit reduction, than I'm not sure it can cost too much...strategic investments don't usually payback rapidly.

There are several provisions that are active within the first year, preexisting conditions for children being one of them. I believe they're targeting 95% coverage which would contain the bulk of the uninsured.

It certainly is both.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

Why don't you think Coburn was proposing these amendments a year or six months ago?

I'd like to see the states being a larger part of the solution, but don't believe a problem such as this can really be solved without Federal action. There's just no way the states could prioritize and coordinate activities in a meaningful manner...

Generally, I'd agree with the position taken by those pragmatic Brits at the Economist.

That:

A) A country as wealthy as the US should have affordable care available to everyone

and

B) That this bill, crappy as it is, is a necessary motivator to drive the follow-on solutions to better address the root causes of the issue. That doing nothing is actually worse, as it will delay the action and let the problems fester. That being said, the bill in it's current state will not adequately address the issue.

The bill as passed can accommodate for tort reform and state competition in the future. I fully expect these initiatives to be incorporated in the next 5 years.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;757699]I believe I simply found it ironic.


You "believe" you "simply" found it ironic? So you're not sure? And "simply" is disingenuous.

Your irony is founded on the false premise that to be "conservative" means to be be perfectly and slavishly bound by some narrow perception of "conservative" philosopy. And anyone who doesn't strictly follow the cookie-cutter mold is in conflict with the "guidelines." Since, in reality, everyone is unique, it would be difficult , if not impossible, to fit a large constituency into one mold. The basic tenet that binds most "conservatives" is adherence to, and preservation of, the Constitution and its original intent. "Conservatives," within whatever tent that label encompasses, argue with each other about all issues, economic, social, policy, the one common bond is the Constitution. Coburn did not violate that bond with his amendment.

Now, it is not ironic that, though you find irony in Coburn's amendment, you don't muster any objection to the sneaky way the Dems passed the bill. It is taken for granted that such would be. One cannot complain to a rattlesnake if it bites you and injects its venom in your veins. That is its nature. That is what it does. And it is the nature of the left to succeed by any means necessary. That is what they do.

[QUOTE=spence;757699]Huh?

You said Coburn's amendment to bar sex offenders from getting insurance paid Viagra was creating more government by creating another law to be enforced and that such a law could not be enforced. Then you said it's already verboten under Medicare and Medicaid. Ergo my question about why such extra unenforcable government (the Medicare and Medicaid restriction) was created.

It's projected by the CBO to slow the increase and therefore deliver deficit reduction.

Garbage in, garbage out.

On the wealthy and the HC industry. If it really delivers deficit reduction, than I'm not sure it can cost too much...strategic investments don't usually payback rapidly.

Taxes on the wealthy and, especially, on industry, eventually trickle down to consumers in higher costs.

Class warfare is a leftist tactic to gain support of the "masses." The wealthy are demonized as somehow hurting the not wealthy. This justifies taxing them at higher and higher rates in order to "level." How does it hurt you if someone is wealthier than you? Is not the drive to wealth a more positive than a negative factor in free market economies?

There are several provisions that are active within the first year, preexisting conditions for children being one of them. I believe they're targeting 95% coverage which would contain the bulk of the uninsured.

Several?

The 95% being "targeted" includes the 85% who already are covered which means that of the 15% that are not, only 2/3 are "targeted." Which means one third will not be insured. As I said, the bill won't insure all those who were the reason for its existence.

It certainly is both.

We agree. My contention is that it is more income redistributive in its intent than it is intended to distribute health care, which can be done by free market methods in concert with the will and consent of the people in their different state and local venues, and without harm either to original constitutional intent or to the pockets of the citizens whom that constitution protects.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

That is, for "conservatives," the problem. The Supreme Court has gone way beyond original intent in "interpreting" the general welfare clause. And as long as it continues to accede to whatever wishes the Congress desires to tax and spend for "the general welfare", the Federal Government will have nearly unlimited power over the States and the people. NOT THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS.

Good luck with that.

Attacking my method of speech? I say believe because it sounds more pretentious. As for simply, you're coming to quick conclusions for someone who doesn't know what I was thinking.

Conservatives also tend to oppose unnecessary Federal legislation, of which this amendment certainly is...

I don't think it was necessarily sneaky, they simply used whatever means were necessary to do what they believed was necessary, everything was done in public.

Bush did what he thought was necessary when the Administration misrepresented the case for the Iraq war...they did what they believed was necessary...although in the case of the health care bill the facts were on the table. That it didn't paint a clear picture is the reason for the lack of public enthusiasm, and the opening for the GOP to could the water with disinformation.

-spence

It looks like everyone is really hard up for something to complain about :hihi:

[QUOTE=detbuch;757762]I didn't say it couldn't be enforced, but that it would take spending to do so, or put the pressure on State governments and private business to comply. Aren't the exchanges going to be run by the states?

Perhaps if a person wanted viagra they should be forced to prove to the Feds are not a sex offender.

Simple, because the wealthy have most of the money--and as it "takes money to make money"--the wealthy are naturally going to stay wealthy.

A progressive system doesn't inhibit the free market when tempered by reality.

Of course, there are others...

Tax credits to small business to cover the Medicare Part D donut hole, allowing kids on parents health care until age 26, can't drop coverage due to health, lifetime caps, 85% spent on care etc...


Like illegals and people who avoid the mandate?

Like I said, I think it's both. I wouldn't expect the Dems to propose a free market approach to this problem. They would favor more proactive action under the belief that the government can be a positive force.

I think the country has changed a lot in the past 200 years, and why there's a judicial branch to help interpret how the Constitution should be applied to modern times.

This is why balance among both the Judicial and Legislative branches is a good thing...

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;757843]Ya think:love: