RSSThanks Barack Obama … Under Obamacare Rapists & Sex Offenders Could Get Federally Subsidized Viagra
Thank you Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats for allowing sex offenders to access Viagra via Obamacare.
So how will Democrats defend this little gem in November and Obama in 2012?
Well isn’t this special. Yet another reason to be against Obamacare. This time according to Roll Call, Obamacare will allow rapists and sex offenders to get federally subsidized Viagra and other sexual performance enhancing drugs.
The Congressional Research Service confirmed in a memo Wednesday that rapists and sex offenders may get federally subsidized Viagra and other sexual performance enhancing drugs under the recently passed health care reform law — information that Republicans charge will haunt Democrats in upcoming elections.
Remember that Republican Senator Tom Coburn offered an amendment that would have prohibited federal funds from being used to purchase Viagra and Cialis to rapists and child molestors. The amendment failed and Obamacare was allowed to have tax payer $’s afford rapists sex enhancing drugs. BRILLIANT!
Red State offers some good news and some bad news.
So that is the bad news, at least it is if you are living in the vicinity of a currently incapacitated rapist or child molester or if you are a Democrat senator in a Red or purple state who voted against Senator Coburn’s amendment.
Now for the good news.
If you are raped Obamacare will cover the cost of your abortion and any mental health counseling you may require. When life gives you lemons, etc.
So I guess the Dems are going after the sex offender, rapist, child molester voting block.
Posted April 7, 2010 by Scared Monkeys 2010 Elections, 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Child Welfare, Drugs, Healthcare, Obamacare, Obamanation, Politics, Sex Offender, WTF | 27 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
27 Responses to “Thanks Barack Obama … Under Obamacare Rapists & Sex Offenders Could Get Federally Subsidized Viagra”
Leave a Reply
Do you really think sex offenders couldn’t find access to sex enhancement drugs
__________
SM: Do you really think that tax payers need to be paying for sex offenders to take sex enhancement drugs? Stop defending your boy at the risk of children and women.
So now the LEFT goes to the lengths of making excuses for Obama so that sex predators can get VIAGRA.
Many of you make me sick.
No one can defend a federally mandated insurance program that gives the rights to sex offenders to receive and have paid for sexual enhancement drugs.
Why don’t we just federally subsidize drug dealers with cocaine and heroine as well?
R
Do you really think sex offenders couldn’t find access to sex enhancement drugs anyway? And that if they want to find assistance to pay for the drugs they won’t find assistance? The problem is is with the laws that don’t put these guys in prison and keep them there not with access to medication!
Hey dog face pelosi now are you HAPPY the crap care bill passed so YOU can finally find out what’s in it ???
I guess they’re hoping the crooks will stay straight
when they get out of the Gray Bar Hotel!
jbrandt – you speak as if you have some expertise in sex offenders. Maybe your local law enforcement needs to take a look at you!
You completely miss the point your heartless and souless bleeding liberal puke; TAXPAYERS such as myself and many other HARD WORKING Americans who DO pay a federal income tax and have small children are having to pay for creeps like you to get sex enhancement drugs? You’re a twit! Sittin in your mommy’s basement with stained wife beater shirt! Tool!
I can’t believe there are people out there defending the FACT that these drugs are being bought with OUR money!
I remember watching a Louie Anderson stand up years ago and he had a segment where he talked about having a freeze gun for idiots like this guy!
#2 Of course they should be put away. However, the fact that they are not does not mean that these pervs should be provided sexual enhancement drugs at the tax payer expense.
What is the likelihood that these sex offenders will be apart if the 66% of federally helped Obamacare recipients?
What is even more wrong is that Democrats had an opportunity to act in a bipartisan manner and be on the side of children and women. Instead Democrats sided with the sex offenders.
Like I said, have a good time explaining that one to the voters.
R
Obama’s Christian faith is showing……?
Here is the best prescription for sex offenders.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=36259160�
This is despicable. First, the tax payers are being forced to pay for embryonic stem cell research, then abortions and now this.
Makes me sick. Liberals are such scum. Wanting the tax payers to fund their nasty habits.
Looks like SUPER DAVE and Scotty Boy will be able to get their drugs. Watch out world.
I think anyone receiving health care based on tax dollars should have to submit to a mandatory drug test and random afterwards. Should knock out quite a few participants in this plan!
if they smoke….shouldn’t be allowed to have it. Oops! there’s that evilness coming out of me again execting personal responsibility and no bonuses for those who don’t practice it. Sorry…
jack, i don’t need viagra. ask your mama.
If Sen Coburn were serious about this issue he would have introduced it during the open debate about the bill. He had months and months of time to take this action, but did he?
In fact, he could introduce this as a stand-alone piece of legislation; if it is as good of an idea as described, he might get many co-sponsors and easy passage on its merits (not on political gamesmanship). Will he? Will any Republican?
These types of trumped up issues are pathetic as they are so easily explained and debunked.
Please try and be a little serious and not waste time and space with such simplistic drivel.
WR
p.s. I do want to offer my thanks to Sen Coburn for his brave comments recently, accurately describing Leader Pelosi as a nice person. It was especially heartening to hear his unflattering comments on Fox News, and their trustworthiness (or lack there-of).
___________
SM: Talk about your typical liberal … GEEZ.
Dude, ya cant have it both ways. You praise some one when they praise the Dragon Lady Speaker of the house and then you condemn the same man when he points out a hideous feature of Obamacare. Nice.
You are actually what is wrong with the Democrat Party today … you are uninformed and a hater. Oh, because he spoke out against Fox News that makes him good but that he speaks out against Democrats in that they allowed sex offenders to have paid for meds, he is evil.
You are an idiot. I hope you have no children and heaven help the females in your family.
He had referenced it in the past. But then again, you are so informed, you knew that.
When it came time to pass an amendment to Obamacare … Dems voted for sex offenders.
Have a good time defending that one on the campaign trails.
R
talk about wasted space. #13, what about all
our oxygen you just wasted on this piece of
democrat propaganda ? as with all democrat
rhetoric and propaganda, this one should be filed under garbage.
jack – ohhhhh…that was original…lol…smuck.
Boy you sure got me with that one…idiot!
Care to respond to the topic with something more than a fourth grade put down? Or is that the peak of your intelligence? I say it is….Never once have you offered up a reasonable argument or point in defending giving FREE TAYPAYER PAID erection pills to sex offenders? The reason is you can’t; like most liberals; you go on the attack mode and use alinsky 101…you just a moronic hater who drools on every word that comes out of Chris Matthews, Keith loser Olberman and the butch Rachael Maddow.
Get bent loser!
Super Dave,
From Wikipedia: one propaganda technique –
Ad hominem
A Latin phrase that has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.
Nuff said.
Hey SUPER DAVE – I asked my mama, and she says you definitely need some help. And you better quit talking to my 10 year old sister, creep. And Scott – could you please show me any point you made during your paragraph long post. It was all attacking me for not making a point, and you failed to make one yourself. You, SUPER DAVE, and Scared Monkeys are what is wrong with the Republican Party.
Scott,
I guess you couldn’t parse my suggestion for a stand-alone bill as a supported method of getting this idea passed (why else would I suggest it). In all honesty, I never stated any support against the ban; you can’t prove otherwise.
I would respectfully ask that you carefully point out any hateful language I used. BTW, you could also admit to the hateful language you’ve used, to be fair and balanced. If that’s not possible I question your ability to recognize hateful commentary.
Is it possible for you to have a rational discussion on a topic without devolving into ad hominem catch phrases that call into question your seriousness? I predict any response you give will answer this question.
WR
SM,
If you were paying attention, you would know that I was pointing out a flaw in the attempted process used. At no time did I refer to Sen Coburn in a way that condemns him. To reiterate, if this issue is so important, where is it being pursued now to improve the law?
Do you realize that when a public official speaks, it is possible to have an opinion that they sometimes saying good things, and sometimes not so good things? Do you blindly believe and follow every last word you hear of those you admire (I’m guessing not)? Can you explain how my comments are any different? That I carefully listen and think about what I hear and read, I can rationally form separate opinions, and therefore have it both ways, as you put it. Are you trying to have it both ways in your support of Sen Coburn, where he praises Leader Pelosi, yet offers this amendment?
If you are able to elaborate, I’d be interested in where what I said is uninformed (or what it is I hate); is that just your opinion, or do you know of evidence to the contrary? I’m sure your response to this will be informational. BTW, is disagreement the same as hate?
When it came time to pass an amendment to Obamacare … Dems voted for sex offenders: I know you are intelligent enough to know that this vote was all about process, not policy. As you know, that was all I said. If it is true he referenced it in the past, I’d like to know that. Care to share your knowledge and offer a link to a prior reference (that is, if you care about information over talking points)?
I’m hoping this discussion can continue and focus on the topic; but that is going to be up to those who make a serious effort to post relevant comments. Time will tell.
WR
Scott,
I apologize for mistaking your post as comments on my post; I failed to connect it with “jack”‘s post.
Sorry,
WR
p.s. – I would delete it if I could, but don’t see that option.
jack(#10/17):
could you please show me any point you made during your paragraph long post. It was all attacking me for not making a point, and you failed to make one yourself
Are you serious that your post in #10 actually made a point? And I suppose that post was not about attacking anyone?
I’d love to hear from you and understand your critical thinking on these.
WR
p.s. I’m not holding my breath.
According to GOP.com
The new law does “not appear to prohibit a qualified health plan in a health insurance exchange from providing coverage for drugs prescribed to treat ED for a non-incarcerated beneficiary who was previously convicted of rape, child molestation, or another sex offense” the CRS said in its memo, dated April 2 but released Wednesday. The report also said that “a convicted rapist, child molester, or other sex offender who is not incarcerated would not appear to be excluded from enrolling in a qualified health plan offered through an American Health Benefit Exchange in their state solely because of that conviction.”
So if this is what the CRS said, where is the anything mentioned about any federal subsidies being involved? Unless that provision is proven to exist, there will not be any taxpayer $’s going to pay for this.
Additionally, the CRS memo describes things the law doesn’t permit. Unless someone knows (and shows) that the law specifically mentions ED drugs, or released felons, it would imply that, in general, all legal patients (insureds) can get any legal drug via their coverage that the law describes.
Apart from off-topic space wasters, does anyone have any more details on this?
WR
is this the best you guys can come up with ? you guys always come out when your boy obama is getting (jacked) or (hammered) in the polls.
it’s amazing how you show when his numbers are
low and he is struggling to even sale his scam to
his own followers who so lovingly gave up their souls and the wellbeing of their own families for the sake of voting popularity and skin color. only to come up short.
Super Dave #23
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
There, I’ve just matched the level of intellect you need to produce your posts. Except in my case, I’ve made a more meaningful comment than you have.
Seriously (which I know is tremendously difficult concept for you), what part of your screeds have anything to do with the original post (that’s the text at the top of this web page)?
Are you really as pathetic as your comments would lead one to believe?
WR
#22 says: “Apart from off-topic space wasters, does anyone have any more details on this?”
Answer: Nope. Where is this memo from the CRS, btw? Why isn’t it linked?
The article above, from the obviously extreme far-right author, is akin to a far left blog writing an article that states that “All Republicans are pro-rape” since they voted against the Franken Anti-Rape Bill.
No difference – is just red meat for the base of the website which obviously is extreme far right conservatism/nativism/insert your own “ism”.
Although I do find it interesting that those that supposedly shout “No gov’t between a patient and their doctor” now want the gov’t between a patient and their doctor.
Go figure.
Scott – My response to the article was #2. I am a 57 year old woman. I graduated from Vanderbilt University with a degree in Early Childhood Development. I have worked for more than thirty five years with children under the age of five who have been abused in ways you could never begin to imagine. I have lobbied, written and spoken to Senators and Legislators concerning the rights of children. I have paid taxes since I was fourteen years old. It would be an honor for your children to have me as their teacher.
You make assumptions and speak of which you know not!
#25 – I presume you were asking the OP where his link was since he referred to the CRS in the original post. A very good question, I think.