Opinion Talk

By mary

June 9, 2005 11:39 PM | Link to this

Mr. Owings, thank you for your fair-minded and well researched article on road safety for 18 wheelers and the rest of the driving public. Slowing trucks down not only would save many lives, it also would lower operating costs for trucking lines. It’s hard to make a good argument against that!

By Lyrazel

June 10, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

Excuse me? I find it remarkable how few people actually understand how much control pharmaceutical companies had in making up Medicaid coverage! Why here is another stunning example. Yet it is one of so many. For example, if you are overweight by a hundred pounds you can qualify for laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery! Yes and you can stay on Medicaid for years even after surgery because reviews of cases are so rare. I think its not really the pills and potions being offered that is the problem—its the amount of people who stay on Medicaid for their entire lives until switching to Medicare. The cases should be reviewed yearly—and that would involve spending money—but it would help regulate the ones who seriously need the help apart from the ones who have the cunning to live off the system.

By rob

June 10, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

NO ONE, ANYTIME, EVER. Sex has two purposes: having babies or enjoyment. Neither of which are the responsibility of government. If you are already relying on Medicaid you obviously cannot support a child or yourself. You need to spend your time working at a job not thinking about the sex you can’t have. ENHANCMENT is not a necessity of life. If you think so, then you should also accept it when they tell you what to do in your bedroom. With freeedom comes responsibility. They go hand in hand. If you give away your responsibility you also give away your freedom. Life on the federal teet is not for me.

By Dennis

June 10, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

“Who should receive sexual-enhancement drugs through Medicaid?”

Just like any other necessary medication that benefits a persons quality of life, those who need it should get it.

(Interesting that any politician our governor included, needs an issue like this to stay in the public limelight).

By vonnie

June 10, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

NO ONE should receive sexual enhancement drugs paid for with taxpayer money.

By Van

June 10, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Whle I do not know whether paying for Viagra is proper or not under Medicaid, my real problem is the Doctors that are writing these prescriptions. While It has a valid place in medicine, why are doctors writing prescriptions for sex offenders and why are they writing scripts for “recreational” use?

As the article said, some medicines have side effects that Viagra and the others can offset.

My problem is not with the drug itself, but the unresponsible Doctors that will write a prescription for anything for anyone, as long as they get there cut up front. Either from the drug representatives, drug company’s or the insurance comapnies.

By Jim

June 10, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

No one. If you want Viagra buy it with your own money not the taxpayers.

By shelia

June 11, 2005 02:08 AM | Link to this

No I don’t think taxpayer should pay for viagra or any sex pills for anyone. There need to be some cut off point where taxpayer are paying. We already pay enough now.so if someone need viagra or any kind of sex drug pay for it out of pocket.

By E. Lewis

June 13, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this

No one.