Let Them Eat Viagra!
Let Them Eat Viagra!
Sexy seniors may be excited, but the rest of the nation is wondering at the administration’s skewed priorities. The latest: According to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government is planning to spend almost $2 billion in the next decade on male impotence drugs.
What could $2 billion of taxpayer money buy besides a heck of a lot of Viagra?
For starters, it could restore the entire $1.1 billion in federal funds taken away from the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Today, 8.4 million kids lack health insurance. An estimated 5 million uninsured children are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but aren’t enrolled. (A study by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation shows between April 2003 and July 2004, due to a lack of funding, nearly half of the states in the U.S. took some measure to make it harder to sign up for or stay in SCHIP.) Using $1.1 billion of the money which is currently slated to pay for Viagra could insure an additional 750,000 children.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If sick children donated as heavily as flaccid seniors, then I’m sure the current administration would be more anxious to help them.
Listern for a faint political message with each satisfied customer, “This erection provided by Citizens for a Rock-Hard Republican Majority”
May 17th, 2005 at 12:13 pmThis is one of the most uninformed comments, medically and fiscally, I have seen in some time. It touches all the emotional buttons. The perfect issue for a politician in an age of meaningless issues. Old geezers with chemically induced erections looking for women while children go without medical care. Hogwash. Impotence drugs are a valid medication for a wide variety of serious male medical problems, both psychological and physical. Few of those problems receive nearly as much attention as female problems, i.e. the paucity of funds for studying prostrate problems compared with the vast sums for breast cancer. Viagra alone is being identified as a valid medication for an increasingly large number of medical problems, both male and female. Please show some editorial restraint in the future and stay with the kind of issues you do so well.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:19 pmYou have such a Swiftian wit in its rapier like…erm, rapier-ness. Sorry, I’m off today. You know, for a rather anti-gay, anti-sex, Desperate Housewives kinda group, they sure do like their erections. . .makes you wonder.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:40 pmRedickulous.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:44 pmThis has nothing to with horny seniors and everything to do with pork for pharmaceutical corporations.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:49 pm“pork…” Man, these comments are writing themselves…
May 17th, 2005 at 12:51 pmSounds like your main beef is about uninsured kids.
You could pick any item of spending whatsoever and make the same argument – that the funds would be better used by providing insurance for kids. I can think of dozens of funding programs I’m sure you support enthusiastically, that could be ended so that the money could be used to insure kids.
The question becomes….what is the function of government? What are legitimate expenditures according to the constitution?
The constitution has been ignored for the latter half of the last century, now we are quibbling about who gets to spend the money first – on their pet agendas. (in your case, insurance for kids)
May 17th, 2005 at 1:15 pmRegardless of the function of government, providing erections for the elderly must be pretty low on the list… Can’t this $2B be used for another tax cut?
May 17th, 2005 at 1:18 pmDick Cheney needs $2 billion worth of Viagra?
Seriously, buckshot seems to think that this is a case of “spending the money on your own pet agandas” The implication is that erectile dysfunction (I believe it’s a fairly natural part of growing old) and child healthcare are equally important topics.
Expanding slightly, Universal healthcare is a VERY important topic. If it can be provided then it should. Yes, this results in the rich paying more to help cover the costs of the poor. But at the moment what happens is that the poor can’t afford to go to the doctor, so they wait until it is an emergency and then they go to the emergency room. They can’t pay so the hospital eats the cost. How can the hospital afford to eat the cost? By charging more of the people who CAN afford to pay. In the end it costs MORE this way as what might have been easy to cure before it became an emergency has become much harder to cure, and more important to cure quickly.
So purely out of my own self interest (I want to pay less, not more) I think that Universal Healthcare is more important than whether Dick can get it up. I just wish that they weren’t trying to make us feel impotent too.
Z.
May 17th, 2005 at 1:30 pmIt’s really just about Dominionism, which honors the male as boss of all – especially women.
May 17th, 2005 at 1:58 pmWow-and what a dilemna for the ‘moral values’ pharmacists. Will they require proof of marriage and an oath of fidelity acknowledged by both spouses before dispensing an impotence drug? Because, you know, we couldn’t have unmarried men or philandering husbands having sex out of wedlock now, could we?
May 17th, 2005 at 2:12 pmWell Dana, to take the Moral Values Pharmacist’s role one step further, people shouldn’t be having sex unless it’s for procreation, so a fertility test of the receiving female and motility test of dispensing male should be required, and naturally, she’ll be free of any form of birth control.
This administration makes me puke!
Theresa
May 17th, 2005 at 2:22 pmAll this talk about viagra and not one mention of Bob Dole. Can’t believe it.
May 17th, 2005 at 2:26 pmSo *this* is what Bush was talking about when he asked, “Need some wood?”
May 17th, 2005 at 2:29 pmYeah let’s give the religious authortarian men more power to force pregnancy on women who in their opinion, should not even have birth control. And forget the children, they don’t matter-only embryos-as through the near worship of the embryo, women’s bodies become self-prisons. Isn’t that how torture works? Turn the person’s body into a prison or use it against the person that is to be controlled. Yet another expample of the New Religious Reich in all of their glory and wisdom.
I wish they’d go and create their own little hell where they can beat their wives, have sex with their cousings and have a new drooling idiot inbred kid every year to show for it!
May 17th, 2005 at 4:08 pmexcuse the spellings please!
May 17th, 2005 at 4:09 pmI just read the article, and these stats are coming to light because of Republican Rep. Steve King’s bill to prohibit such giveaways. Also interesting to note that the bill has some broad bi-partisan support–pro-freedom Reps Flake and Goode, in addition to socialist Rep Kucinich support the measure.
How about this: people pay for their own drugs!
May 17th, 2005 at 4:45 pmCheryl, forced pregnancy upon women is rape, and that is illlegal. Otherwise, pregnancy is a choice made entirely by the woman. No one besides a rapist is forcing it on anyone.
May 17th, 2005 at 5:16 pmImagine what changes are coming to our society when a male birth control becomes available. The welfare roles are going to drop off BIG TIME, and there are going to be literally MILLIONS of young women scheming on how to get pregnant. No pregnancy, no meal ticket.
Interestingly, and off topic a bit, the vast majority of drug dealers live …. with their mothers….in their mother’s welfare apartment.
Ouch. Can America survive without a welfare class?
May 17th, 2005 at 6:16 pmWhat does that say about the women that marry these morons? They’re not helping the women’s cause one bit.
May 17th, 2005 at 9:08 pmWomen like that are Phyllis Schlaffly clones. They are afraid of freedom and choice and want an authoritarian religious male to rule over them. Problem is, they don’t want to be reminded that other women have freedom and choice and use both! It reminds the Stepford Wife clones that other things are possible, and maybe they’re not taking charge of their lives and doing exciting things. Since they can’t handle that nagging thought that other women are not cloying dependent nothings, they must make sure for their psyches that all women become what they are! Their dominating viagra popping fanatical insecure males love it. Complete control over other people’s bodies…..and gov’t paid viagra….who cares about someone else’s children.
May 17th, 2005 at 9:41 pmPolygamy will soon become more widespread and in the words or our Dear Leader, that will require “hard work” on the part of American males as they make sure the wives are appropriately, ahem…satisfied. Subsidized chemical help in this department will certainly be much appreciated.
May 17th, 2005 at 10:05 pmTony- you’re crazy:
Forced FORNICATION is rape, not forced pregnancy. I think the forced pregnancy argument stems from the religious right making birth control more and more difficult to obtain – in this country, the ability for a pharmacist to “abstain” from providing birth control because of their religious beliefs. In other countries by funding abstience only sexual education programs that have not been proven to be effective.
Yes, I suppose all women have a fool-proof method for not getting pregnant: be abstient. But, c’mon – are you serious or something?
May 18th, 2005 at 9:07 amWho’s right is it to determine what medicine should be available to whom? Is it the Religious Right’s right to allow individuals to determine access to legal medicine? Am I wrong in thinking that this should cause popular outrage?
The only side-effect to not getting your Viagra fix is, “Honey I have a headache.” A possible side-effect to not getting Prozac could be disastrous. A definite “side-effectâ€? to not getting morning-after medication is pregnancy.
When there is a safe, effective, available medicine on the shelf and that patient is denied access to that medicine because of another person’s “beliefs” – isn’t that a tyranny of some sort? Since when is it ok for me to forbid you to do something, and for you to capitulate?
Maybe we’re just talking about different countries – I live in America, where do you live (or want to live)?
May 18th, 2005 at 9:43 amWho’s right is it to determine what medicine should be available to whom? Is it the Religious Right’s right to allow individuals to determine access to legal medicine? Am I wrong in thinking that this should cause popular outrage?
When there is a safe, effective, available medicine on the shelf and that patient is denied access to that medicine because of another person’s “beliefs” – isn’t that a tyranny of some sort? Since when is it ok for me to forbid you to do something, and for you to capitulate?
Maybe we’re just talking about different countries – I live in America, where do you live (or want to live)?
May 18th, 2005 at 9:58 amRuss,
In a free society, exchange between 2 persons is a voluntary act. No one is forced to provide a good or service to any other person. For example, I like green tomatoes. They exist and are legal to own. Should a grocer be forced by a third party to sell them to me? No, *that* would be tyranny.
The “Religious Right” is not blocking the sale of pills. The individual himself (not a third party) is choosing not to sell a particular good. It is his right to sell or not sell a good. There is no force of any kind involved here.
May 18th, 2005 at 10:56 amA “pharmacy” is a place where one can go to get medicine. A pharmacist “stealthily” denying one medicine while allowing all others is no longer a “pharmacist”. I suppose it would be more acceptible if a pharmacy not selling morning-after medication changed their name to “Family Dispensary”.
The ability for pharmacists to deny access to a legal drug only available in a pharmacy is blocking the sale of those pills.
It won’t be too long until there is a story describing the inability for a woman to get morning-after medication because of a single pharmacist’s denial: rural location, time constraints, religious bigotry – take your pick of possible reasons…
May 18th, 2005 at 11:05 amRuss,
If a pharmacist physically held back her co-worker who was selling a pill to a consumer, that would be blocking, that would be anti-freedom. We can agree this is wrong.
If she decides herself not to sell a pill to her customer, she is excercising her freedom.
If a 3rd party forced her to sell a pill, that is anti-freedom.
So it sounds like you are anti-freedom, and I am pro-freedom.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:48 amWhat if the electric company decided that they didn’t want to send electricity to your house because of their “freedom of religion?” Would that be ok too?
“Freedom” is all well and good until you’re providing a service. Granted, the electric company in a functional monopoly to guarantee electric service to all – but what about the lone pharmacy in a rural town – aren’t they a functinal monopoly too.
This wouldn’t be an issue if a woman had weeks to take the medicine, but this is something that is on the clock. A woman who want the morning-after pill might not always have the luxury of shopping-around for a pharmacy that will do it’s duty to the American public: provide medicine.
May 18th, 2005 at 11:57 amRuss,
The lone pharmacy in a rural town is far from a monopoly. Another pharmacy is free to open up in the town, and it would if customer demand for a certain drug was not being met by the lone pharmacy. Problem solved.
A businessman’s duty is not to serve the public. A businessman does not have a duty, per se. He can do whatever he wants, as long as he doesn’t threaten life, liberty, or property.
If, as you say, a person has a right to easily accessible pills, then what about towns without pharmacies? What about people who live in the middle of Alaska, 100 miles from any kind of civilization? Should the government mandate that a pharmacy be located less than 5 miles away from every citizen?
Also, why can’t the same logic be extended to grant citizens a right to a nearby Outback Steakhouse? There aren’t any of those in Central Alaska.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:07 pmrights, schmights, it’s not a pharmacist’s job to determine what medicine a patient should get. that’s a doctor’s job. if the pharmacist doesn’t like the parameters of his/her job, maybe he/she should get another job more suitable to his disposition…like, say, witch-finder.
cookie jill examines this issue on skippy.
May 18th, 2005 at 1:14 pmF–k, Tony – you’re a tool. You can’t seem to get it around your pseudo-libertarian head that the contract between the patient and her doctor was breached by a third party.
Frankly, your Outback Steakhouse comparison is complete bunk. There’s market commodity, and then there’s the human body. The ONLY freedom when it comes to health care is the freedom to GET IT.
May 18th, 2005 at 5:49 pmAssamite-
Contract between the patient and doctor=patient pays doctor money, doctor gives patient slip of paper saying she has permission to receive pills. How is that contract being breached? A pharmacist has no part in the above contract.
Any person/doctor is free to contract with each other to get health care. However, if as you imply a person has “freedom” to have healthcare given to them, how much $$ worth of health care are they entitled to? State the exact amount please, to the penny.
May 19th, 2005 at 8:52 amמאחז
Thanks for the information, Greg, See also מאחז summary at מאחז. Have Fun! Try מאחז – best rules, tips, history, and, of course, the game. I also think that playing http://www.buy-…
July 12th, 2005 at 5:27 pmhttp://www.home-loans-inc.com/but/ complimentwhosewondered
July 27th, 2005 at 2:57 pmhttp://home.holmacollege.org/indians/ grudgepartsreligious
July 28th, 2005 at 8:00 amhttp://trading.stock-a.com/xlmi7t0u/ fifthunfeelingweird
July 31st, 2005 at 4:49 pmhttp://www.booktextone.com/faye/ hornronduresitting
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:03 amhttp://pole.kulu-best.com/7whfxq7y7/ discoveredexplicitjaw
August 6th, 2005 at 5:42 pmhttp://maryland.acfair.org/xmu1gxa09/ broughtentailswashed
August 26th, 2005 at 1:15 amhttp://www.htc.net/~abhoffmn/wwwboard/messages/1204.htm grudgepartsreligious
September 6th, 2005 at 6:31 amhttp://www.moonrakers.com/wwwboard/messages/2101.html baseinchesmelted
September 9th, 2005 at 12:53 amhttp://nude.boseinstitute.org/rejcmhsnd/ distinctjournalmothers
September 14th, 2005 at 11:42 amhttp://www.iit.edu/~matharu/cgi-bin/wwwboard/messages/1108.html auditoriumsquintedthan
September 21st, 2005 at 2:46 pmhttp://pee-stories.100girlspeeing.com/decals/dogs.html brieflyfinishhotter
September 23rd, 2005 at 6:49 amhttp://pornvx.porkyhost.com/free_piss_fetish/postings.html agabreathlessswell
September 24th, 2005 at 3:52 pmhttp://moms.presselibre.org/rape__and__incest/ hatslikessweatshirts
September 25th, 2005 at 1:26 pmhttp://www.foniatriaonline.com/wwwboard/messages/15517.html beckonframedrotating
September 26th, 2005 at 10:56 pmhttp://www.channel.islands.national-park.com/wwwboard/messages/23322.html iwasshoespilling
September 26th, 2005 at 11:45 pmhttp://www.dickensfoundation.org/slwuds/ advancesbrainsswallow
October 4th, 2005 at 10:37 pmhttp://zoo.dickensfoundation.org/7re0o2r/ forwardneckedprobable
October 5th, 2005 at 1:51 amhttp://milwaukeechapter.com/wwwboard/messages/69184.html iwasshoespilling
October 19th, 2005 at 1:53 amallemande statue:technique cycles,indignation Archer:useful rippled:
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:47 amfullest denounce Paganini garnish:Thelma,timeout:Moors.- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
November 4th, 2005 at 12:16 pm786
You are invited to visit some relevant information in the field of 331
November 5th, 2005 at 2:50 pmמחשבים מבצע
Our award-winning מחשבים מבצע just got better with support for the Firefox browser! Our free מחשבים מבצע downloads contain fully fun…
November 10th, 2005 at 10:08 amhttp://welina.bpa.nu/mature-porn/9677514/grannyfreegalleries.html againsemeraldshirt
November 14th, 2005 at 2:12 amHershey Essenize,tabs cornfield:boarding!bobbing outdo
November 14th, 2005 at 6:39 amhardcore manga
You are invited to take a look at some relevant information about gay male strippers orgasm denial
November 20th, 2005 at 1:53 pmarousing,checkpoints mutated papers precipitateness grimly Billiken….
November 25th, 2005 at 8:15 pmhttp://www.majorclick.com/home/members/stocks/hotss/matureladies/gree/starts.html sightstickysubmit
December 7th, 2005 at 8:43 amhttp://www.suomifutis.net/firnal/gaytwinks/kgg5/australian.html agentmanhoodragged
December 7th, 2005 at 12:00 pmhttp://www.toronto-goth.com/denizens/nauchilsya/incestpics/phone/chat.html giddyinsistedtongues
December 25th, 2005 at 7:15 pmFreddie wired propeller foggily knuckled democratic
December 31st, 2005 at 5:13 amI do not know, what the form or importance is more important, but you do not need to reflect, everything is at high level on your site! Your site is on the very high level and includes a lot of very interesting information and was very useful for me. The site is intereEnjoyed reading your site, just passing by and saw your site. Really nice!
January 4th, 2006 at 11:58 amGreetings from Kathy Wandro %e-mail% Excellent work! Maybe it is hard to find something pleasant for me, but in fact there are the things like your site, bringing a sheer pleasure! Wish you a future success. Bye
January 4th, 2006 at 3:27 pmHi, site is exemplary! The Internet became my second home; it is the most interesting theme for me. Fast loading! Super! Lindsay Nustra %e-mail%
January 8th, 2006 at 9:41 amhttp://www.borderpagans.org/ohmgaq/testosterone-remedy-vitamin.html higherloosertaste
January 9th, 2006 at 4:49 amGreetings to everyone visiting these pages. Thank you … have a good time surfing site Farewell, I have spent time at your site very pleasantly
January 10th, 2006 at 12:04 pmappearcrossedhalls
January 11th, 2006 at 7:29 amGermany!descenders,Koreans linoleum combat crasher customize .
January 11th, 2006 at 8:49 amgKncSUQkwDYW D50bfrggeryq9 8Rjy1PXBRi
October 19th, 2006 at 11:13 amCongrats, good site….
December 17th, 2006 at 12:36 am