Sex criminals to get Viagra?

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Yeah, "conservatives" are not perfect. They might even stoop to all manner of dirty, underhanded, unconstitutional, lying, promise breaking tricks to defeat or hamper a bill that was conjured in just those ways. Of course, I can see why you are annoyed with such a major "conservative" hypocrisy. After all, the Health Care Bill is "Centrist" and should make everyone happy.

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, why did they ever create such extra government to forbid something that is not enforceable? Maybe that's how Coburn got his idea.

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

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.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

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


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

-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.

[scottw]

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

[basenjib123]

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.