PDA

View Full Version : Viagra for sex offenders



luvmylabs23139
03-24-2010, 10:00 AM
Can't wait for the list of Dumms to come out who vote against the banning of this.
I can just the the ads come Nov.
I give the republicans credit. THey are throwing some tuff stuff at the dums.
I guarantee the dumm senator we have will vote for Viagra.

dnf777
03-24-2010, 11:20 AM
Can't wait for the list of Dumms to come out who vote against the banning of this.
I can just the the ads come Nov.
I give the republicans credit. THey are throwing some tuff stuff at the dums.
I guarantee the dumm senator we have will vote for Viagra.

Well, if the dems are dumb enough to continue to fund it, the republicans are dumb enough to give exemptions to the big pharmas who make it, so we all pay a premium price for it! Plenty of blame to share on both sides of the aisle.

Buzz
03-24-2010, 03:15 PM
Yes, the electorate is most likely dumb enough to believe that because the Dems are not dumb enough to screw up reconciliation by voting for amendments, that they actually want to supply Viagra to sex offenders.

What a joke.:rolleyes:

ducknwork
03-24-2010, 03:30 PM
Can't wait for the list of Dumms to come out who vote against the banning of this.


Yeah, they should 'stand up' and be counted...:p;)

Henry V
03-24-2010, 11:57 PM
This one did make the top ten of outrageous amendments in this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/the-most-ridiculous-amend_n_511252.html

ducknwork
03-25-2010, 07:30 AM
What is so outrageous about reading a bill before you vote for it? Or being subject to the same laws you just forced everyone else into following? Or ensuring that citziens who like their insurance won't be forced to switch?

Something must be going over my head. Please explain why these are so ridiculous.

Hew
03-25-2010, 08:34 AM
What is so outrageous about reading a bill before you vote for it? Or being subject to the same laws you just forced everyone else into following? Or ensuring that citziens who like their insurance won't be forced to switch?

Something must be going over my head. Please explain why these are so ridiculous.
No kidding. I read that tripe and thought the same thing as you. Keep in mind, though, that the writers/readers on that site also think it is ridiculous that this country doesn't pay for everybody's healthcare, welfare, cable TV, and solar powered buses for mandatory mass transportation.

luvmylabs23139
03-25-2010, 10:30 AM
What is so wrong with saying medicare savings must be applied to medicare?
Or aditional SS taxes must be applied to SS?

YardleyLabs
03-25-2010, 11:25 AM
What is so wrong with saying medicare savings must be applied to medicare?
Or aditional SS taxes must be applied to SS?
If you read the CBO report, that is exactly what they do, concluding that a primary benefit of the program is that it extends the life of the Medicare trust fund.

luvmylabs23139
03-25-2010, 11:33 AM
MY A**, it is BS accounting and even the CBO admits it!
If I tried to do that crap I'd loose my CPA license!

Eric Johnson
03-25-2010, 12:11 PM
Jeff-

As I recall, they've borrowed from the Medicare trust fund and repaid it with an IOU and then counted the IOU as both an asset and as income thereby making 0+0 = 2....new math.

Eric

YardleyLabs
03-25-2010, 12:53 PM
MY A**, it is BS accounting and even the CBO admits it!
If I tried to do that crap I'd loose my CPA license!

Actually, if you tried to do any of the things done on the Federal books for a private company you would go to jail and if you tried to keep accounts for Federal income and revenues the way you would for a private business you would go to jail. The rules are fundamentally different -- some for good reason and some for bad. I had to laugh when Republican representatives were saying they never tried to influence the CBO or to use its reports as justification for action. In fact, the last administration attacked the CBO regularly for "overstating" the costs of actions such as the tax cuts and the Medicare prescription program. The CBO estimates turned out closer than the administration's. Budget projections regarding the impact of specific legislation, under any circumstances, are difficult. They look at a particular bill over a period of 10 years on the assumption that nothing else will change for better or worse. The reality is that nothing will stay the same. All in all, the CBO has a pretty good track record of remaining non-partisan and of attempting to do an impossible task professionally.


Jeff-

As I recall, they've borrowed from the Medicare trust fund and repaid it with an IOU and then counted the IOU as both an asset and as income thereby making 0+0 = 2....new math.

Eric
I read the CBO report, but I do not recognize that particular equation....

Gerry Clinchy
03-26-2010, 08:38 AM
Anyone know where all the proposed amendments can be found? It would be interesting also to know what amendments the Rs proposed to the original bill that were rejected. We haven't heard much about those, except that there were a lot of them.

There are a couple in the top 10 that don't sound so "outrageous".

Does one really need a PR campaign to counsel fiscal responsibility to the public? They're learning the hard way on that by being unemployed?

The amendment requiring Congress to be part of this health care reform is not outrageous. I wonder if the Congressional plan falls into the "luxury" status. If so, will they pay their penalty on it as assiduously as they pay their other taxes? Their employer is the Fed govt ... I presume the Fed govt cannot compel itself to pay a tax, so it would fall upon the employee? Is this all clear in the bill as it stands? Or is Congress exempt? If so, shame on them ... 535 times.

If there is no other use of Viagra other than ED of unknown etiology, why does health care pay for it ever? Diabetics can be subject to ED ... so treat the diabetes, right? Are there any long-term health risks in allowing ED to go untreated? The abortion pill should not be lumped in there since, from what I gather, there are some cases when abortion can be funded from govt funds (rape, incest, danger to the mother) ... or did I get that wrong?

ducknwork
03-26-2010, 11:32 AM
There are a couple in the top 10 that don't sound so "outrageous".

Yeah. It seems that the person who linked that article isn't terribly interested in explaining why they are so outrageous.:rolleyes:They must feel that they are so, since they posted it and didn't refute any of the ten.

Gerry Clinchy
03-26-2010, 12:58 PM
Just as we were wondering whether it needs to be a law that legislators read bills before voting:

Gap in health care law's protection for children
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar - Associated Press (http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=24654518&msgid=185864&act=96WV&c=446735&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostedne ws%2Fap%2Farticle%2FALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7 rN-AD9EKTKIG0)
Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children. Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

And evidently there was a need to specify that the bill would cover at least certain Federal employees:

Senator Chuck Grassley offered an amendment (http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=24654518&msgid=185864&act=96WV&c=446735&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fgrassley.senate.gov%2Fnew s%2FArticle.cfm%3Fcustomel_dataPageID_1502%3D25889 ) during Senate debate on the health care reconciliation bill to apply the reform legislation to the President, Vice President, cabinet members and top White House staff. The amendment was defeated 56-42 along party lines. Recall Democrat staffers who wrote the bill exempted themselves (http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=24654518&msgid=185864&act=96WV&c=446735&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fnewledger.com%2F2010%2F03 %2Fexempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill%2F) from it.