Rush Limbaugh has finally jumped the shark - advertisers abandoning him

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Use whatever term you like. If "slut" was too harsh, fine.

She got up before the nation, before the Senate, and lamented that her expenses for birth control pills, which are not prescribed to combat any other systemic condition (like ovarian cysts which would be covered), are $3000 per year. As if that cost was unavoidable or that her behavior was inevitable. Like she has no mind of her own or can't control whatever urges she has.

She uses the medicine for the original purpose it was designed - to prevent pregnancy. She's being responsible in the preparedness and forethought exercised. That's no problem at all. We should applaud that aspect of it - all of us who want to see less unplanned pregnancy (and subsequent abortion demand).

BUT - make no mistake - it is her responsibility to cover that cost. Birth control is not free - and neither is sex. If you cannot afford the consequences that may come from sexual behavior, then guess what - you shouldn't be having sex.

We have a nation of spoiled brats. Waaaaaaahhhh, pay for my stuff, waaaaaahhh. Grow up people. If you can't afford a Cadillac, buy a Chevy. If you can't afford a house, rent an apartment. Don't spend your last dime - save until you can afford these things.

There is no Constitutional right to subsidized sexual behavior. There is never a right provided to an individual by anyone but God, and these do not depend on another to pay for.

Person A does not pay for Person B's rights. That transaction would have nothing to do with rights whatsoever - just socialism.

she specifially talked about a fellow student who wasn't having BC covered for cysts. where are you getting your info from? from what i've read, her entire presentation was about that point. and again, you're arguing on the basis of medical necessity-and yet, there are other prescription drugs that are covered, that aren't medically necessary either. or that aren't life changing, but are covered by insurers. as for consequences from sex-exactly what does that mean? it seems a person using birth control is already being responsible-for their health and attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. or is a pregnancy your idea of 'punishment'? also, do you automatically assume that if someone is using birth control, they then must be promiscuous? i was on birth control for years-the whole time i was married to the same fellow i'm married to now. using the pill, which must be taken daily to be effective, doesn't mean someone automatically is attacking every man that walks by.
also, you're taking the same tack others have, that this is socialism. the hearing was on insurance companies and what they cover-has nothing to do with taxpayers. it's a discussion about private insurance companies.