N.Y. Audit Shows Sex Offenders Get Viagra

Post by **lars63** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:59 pm

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Scores of convicted rapists and other high-risk sex offenders in New York have been getting Viagra paid by Medicaid for the last five years, the state's comptroller said Sunday.

Audits by Comptroller Alan Hevesi's office showed that between January 2000 and March 2005, 198 sex offenders in New York received Medicaid-reimbursed Viagra after their convictions. Those included crimes against children as young as 2 years old, he said.

Hevesi asked Michael Leavitt, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in a letter Sunday to "take immediate action to ensure that sex offenders do not receive erectile dysfunction medication paid for by taxpayers."

A call to Leavitt's office was not immediately returned Sunday.

According to Hevesi, the problem is an unintended consequence of a 1998 directive from federal officials telling states that Medicaid prescription programs must include Viagra. His office discovered that the state was helping sex offenders pay for Viagra by checking Medicaid pharmacy expenditures against the state's sex offender registry.

New York's two senators said Sunday the problem should be corrected.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement that it was "deeply disturbing and runs contrary to the purpose of Medicaid, which is to provide health care coverage for uninsured, low-income individuals." Clinton, a Democrat, urged Leavitt to look into the matter, and said she would explore legislative options.

New York's other senator, Democrat Chuck Schumer, said at a press conference in New York City that he hoped the issue could be resolved without a bill, but he's prepared to offer one if needed.

"While I believe that HHS did not do this intentionally, when the government pays for Viagra for sex offenders, it could well hurt many innocent people," he said.

New York auditors are reviewing whether other prescription drugs for sexual dysfunction are being reimbursed by Medicaid for convicted sex offenders, Hevesi spokesman David Neustadt said.

While the auditors didn't review the situation on Viagra reimbursement by Medicaid in other states, he said they have no indication that the policies are different elsewhere.

---

On the Net:

New York Comptroller's Office: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http://www.hhs.gov/

Post by **lars63** » Mon May 23, 2005 2:00 pm

Might want to check the laws in your state

Post by **Foo** » Mon May 23, 2005 5:42 pm

I don't get it. Why does it matter that they in particular are getting viagra?

I mean, if the underlying belief here is that sex offenders should never again be allowed to engage in even legal sex acts, then you need to castrate them? And if that's the belief, go ahead and lobby for it, instead of blabbering about viagra like it matters.

Confusing.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 7:32 pm

Foo wrote:I don't get it. Why does it matter that they in particular are getting viagra?

I mean, if the underlying belief here is that sex offenders should never again be allowed to engage in even legal sex acts, then you need to castrate them? And if that's the belief, go ahead and lobby for it, instead of blabbering about viagra like it matters.

Confusing.

Post by **losCHUNK** » Mon May 23, 2005 7:42 pm

wtf you on ? thats a perfectly sensible post

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 8:37 pm

They get free Viagra and they're sex offenders. I'm not saying you should outlaw their ability to obtain viagra, but that they should definitely have to at least PAY for it instead of having tax payers, pay money for a drug that could potentialy be used by a registered sex offender to commit another crime!

Post by **Foo** » Mon May 23, 2005 8:41 pm

Woah, potentially.

Tell me, Sherlock, why would someone who gets off fiddling kids NEED a drug to become aroused?

Second, you're conveniently heading off into the murky world of punishing people after their sentencing is complete. Just kill em, eh?

Post by **Foo** » Mon May 23, 2005 8:41 pm

PS: Love you Lars

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm

Foo wrote:I don't get it. Why does it matter that they in particular are getting viagra?

I mean, if the underlying belief here is that sex offenders should never again be allowed to engage in even legal sex acts, then you need to castrate them? And if that's the belief, go ahead and lobby for it, instead of blabbering about viagra like it matters.

Confusing.

yeah on the real..

Post by **lars63** » Mon May 23, 2005 9:41 pm

Foo wrote:PS: Love you Lars

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:07 pm

Foo wrote:Woah, potentially.

Tell me, Sherlock, why would someone who gets off fiddling kids NEED a drug to become aroused?

Second, you're conveniently heading off into the murky world of punishing people after their sentencing is complete. Just kill em, eh?

Well to your first point.

Why WOULD someone who get's off fiddling kids NEED a drug to become aroused? Why don't YOU awnser ME that question because you obviously think they should be able to obtain it freely!

Second point.

No, I'm saying this should be part of the punishment. Anything that could be a potential tool to further commit similar acts should be out of reach for those who've been convicted. Same as a murderer shouldn't be allowed to purchase any weapons after conviction.

There's other issues too. If the sex offender is indeed having sex with women of his age and needs this drug to get his rocks off maybe there's more to his problem. Perhaps he still prefers 10 year old boy's instead and can't get it up. This person needs psychological treatment, not Viagra. I can think of many other reasons too why it's a bad idea and why I'd be against it personaly if I was paying taxes.

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:09 pm

pedophilia is a psychosis, it has nothing to do with arousal or whether or not you can get it up!

Post by **losCHUNK** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:12 pm

if if you get arroused by kids but cant by women then dont you think that it would be better to give them viagra so they can at least try n lead a normal sex life

Post by **Foo** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:23 pm

Kracus wrote:Why WOULD someone who get's off fiddling kids NEED a drug to become aroused? Why don't YOU awnser ME that question because you obviously think they should be able to obtain it freely!

First, I don't believe they should be able to obtain it freely because I don't think anyone should have Viagra made available free of charge. That's a seperate issue mind, but needed to be cleared up before you extrapolate my point to an incorrect conclusion. The issue surrounds that of equality, and the principle that once released, without good reason, there should be no reason to treat an offender (any offender) any differenently to another member of society.

Unless you wish to debate this greater point (and we'd need another topic for it), then I don't see our debate going any further until that subject is itself resolved.

Second point.

No, I'm saying this should be part of the punishment. Anything that could be a potential tool to further commit similar acts should be out of reach for those who've been convicted. Same as a murderer shouldn't be allowed to purchase any weapons after conviction.

That makes sense to me, I agree with that principle. But I do not see an inherent link between viagra and, specifically, fiddling kids. More to the point, I think some have made the simple link 'OMG SOMETHING TO DO WITH SEX THEREFORE MUST BE THE SEXUAL DEVIANCY THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY COMITTING'.

Interesting tidbit: Many pedophiles are married, most do engage in 'normal' heterosexual/homosexual relations throughout their lives. I'm confident I could find some literature to back this up, given time, but I don't feel the debate is worth the time investment to do so (2 options, you take my statements above as fact, or choose to disbelieve them.. either's fair enough, but please say which, so we can either continue the debate or stop at this point on mutual disagreement)

There's other issues too. If the sex offender is indeed having sex with women of his age and needs this drug to get his rocks off maybe there's more to his problem. Perhaps he still prefers 10 year old boy's instead and can't get it up. This person needs psychological treatment, not Viagra.

Fair enough comment, but then you're lodging a statement of mistrust in the legal system, healthcare system and mental health communities within your country if you think this is a likelyhood. What you're basically saying is 'I think our system is failing and if sex offenders can get viagra free'

If you really do harbour such a belief, ok.. but then you've probably got bigger fish to fry than the sale of viagra to convicted perverts. Speficially, better get out there and tackle the problem of getting all these people locked back up. After all, this must be what your proposed solution is?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:33 pm

I think it'd be fine if they paid for it yeah. At least it shows they're working towards a goal. Otherwise they're getting a freebie and when that freebie that we're paying for get's old he's not gonna seek treatment where the other one that's paying for viagra is WORKING towards a goal of not being the way he is. I think that step alone is just a small way along the path that these people need to take to recovery. It's more than not doing one thing, it's about all the things people like that do to become better after serving punishment but along with becoming better they have to understand what they did was very bad and this is your punishment. Never forget it cause I bet those kids that got raped will never forget it. Tell that to them when they're paying taxes.

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:34 pm

Kracus wrote:I think it'd be fine if they paid for it yeah. At least it shows they're working towards a goal. Otherwise they're getting a freebie and when that freebie that we're paying for get's old he's not gonna seek treatment where the other one that's paying for viagra is WORKING towards a goal of not being the way he is. I think that step alone is just a small way along the path that these people need to take to recovery. It's more than not doing one thing, it's about all the things people like that do to become better after serving punishment but along with becoming better they have to understand what they did was very bad and this is your punishment. Never forget it cause I bet those kids that got raped will never forget it. Tell that to them when they're paying taxes.

:lol:

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:42 pm

Foo wrote:
Kracus wrote:
If you really do harbour such a belief, ok.. but then you've probably got bigger fish to fry than the sale of viagra to convicted perverts. Speficially, better get out there and tackle the problem of getting all these people locked back up. After all, this must be what your proposed solution is?

Actualy I don't have much faith in the system when it comes to people like this. Many, many, many and I can't stress this enough because there's so many cases of people with pedophelia that are simply uncurable. They can't help themselves. The system does not work many times yet we HAVE to release these people back into the public. It's such a problem that they HAVE this registered sex offender thing BECAUSE it's such a problem. So to imply the system works remotely well is absurd. It's getting better. But it's not perfect.

Post by **Foo** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:46 pm

Kracus wrote:Many, many, many and I can't stress this enough because there's so many cases of people with pedophelia that are simply uncurable. They can't help themselves.

Eh,who knows.

The system does not work many times yet we HAVE to release these people back into the public. It's such a problem that they HAVE this registered sex offender thing BECAUSE it's such a problem. So to imply the system works remotely well is absurd. It's getting better. But it's not perfect.

Probably best then to tackle these root causes, than a few end issues like free VGR50?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:49 pm

So you're saying if you were raped when you were 10, or that if your son or daughter was raped you wouldn't mind paying for you/their rapist so he can get his rocks off?

Post by **losCHUNK** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:52 pm

if i was raped when i was 10 i would be worrying about a lot more things than if my attacker could no longer get his jollies on

like OMGAH the tax im paying will someday save my kiddy fucking rapists life

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:58 pm

So it wouldn't bother you?

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:58 pm

Kracus wrote:So you're saying if you were raped when you were 10, or that if your son or daughter was raped you wouldn't mind paying for you/their rapist so he can get his rocks off?

I would care, just as much as I care when I pay for anybody else's medical bill. You act like viagra is a humping drug. All it does is help old guys maintain erections. You can molest a kid with a limp dick...

Post by **Foo** » Mon May 23, 2005 10:58 pm

Kracus wrote:So you're saying if you were raped when you were 10, or that if your son or daughter was raped you wouldn't mind paying for you/their rapist so he can get his rocks off?

That's never the issue, because it modern society we don't go to the victim to dictate the punishment for a crime.

This is why in tabloid papers you commonly see statements from families where one of their own has been killed, sentencing has been passed, and they're saying it's not enough. It remains a very dumb error of logic which you still find displayed in the crappier 'sensationalist' newspapers.

They're not qualified to make the decisions, they're not fucking judges and you'd never see them on a jury (it's called bias). There's a reason for that. Don't tell me you don't believe in that system either. Does it occur to you that if you're the victim of a crime, you're absolutely the WORST person to be deciding the fate of the peretrator because you're completely biased and have no rational perspective on the issue at hand.

BTW, I've seen this covered in some fairly easy access philosophy books, if you wish to look it up. I doubt you will though.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 23, 2005 11:10 pm

Well I'm saying it should be part of the punishment.

That's my opinion.

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Mon May 23, 2005 11:17 pm