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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.

in regards to your last paragraph, why do you keep referencing socialism and taxation? she was testifying about student insurance provided by a private company, the premiums all the students responsibility-georgetown wasn't on the hook for any of it. not sure why you keep dragging in taxpayers, this entire discussion has been about insurance companies-not subsidies from the govt.
also, obama stepped back weeks ago from demanding employers cover the costs, instead making it part of the package that insurance companies must offer. it's not about religious freedoms when the onus falls on blue cross or others like them to offer birth control.
there are myriad reasons people must take birth control other than cysts. if a doctor prescribes them, that should be all that's necessary for the insurer to cover them. again, there are other medications that also don't always have a medical reason to be prescribed, and yet they ARE covered.
i know a girl who'd been on the pill for years-and hadn't engaged in any sexual activity in several years' time-but if she did, she wouldn't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. one behavior doesn't automatically point to another.

as for religious freedoms dictating what to cover. like i've said elsewhere-where would that stop? some religions are against blood transfusions, others against organ donations, etc. do you want to have to argue about your health with your employer?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

in regards to your last paragraph, why do you keep referencing socialism and taxation? she was testifying about student insurance provided by a private company, the premiums all the students responsibility-georgetown wasn't on the hook for any of it. not sure why you keep dragging in taxpayers, this entire discussion has been about insurance companies-not subsidies from the govt.
also, obama stepped back weeks ago from demanding employers cover the costs, instead making it part of the package that insurance companies must offer. it's not about religious freedoms when the onus falls on blue cross or others like them to offer birth control.
there are myriad reasons people must take birth control other than cysts. if a doctor prescribes them, that should be all that's necessary for the insurer to cover them. again, there are other medications that also don't always have a medical reason to be prescribed, and yet they ARE covered.
i know a girl who'd been on the pill for years-and hadn't engaged in any sexual activity in several years' time-but if she did, she wouldn't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. one behavior doesn't automatically point to another.

as for religious freedoms dictating what to cover. like i've said elsewhere-where would that stop? some religions are against blood transfusions, others against organ donations, etc. do you want to have to argue about your health with your employer?

Obama's "step back" is nothing of the sort. So now instead of it appearing as a line item that the employer must pay for, it's in the "must provide" section of coverage.

Before Obama's revision, the bill to the employer might look like this:

BASIC INSURANCE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $100
BIRTH CONTROL ADDITIONAL COVERAGE for Jane Doe: $20

Now, after Obama's 'accommodation', the revised bill is:

MINIMUM COVERAGE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $120

It's the easiest shell game to see through. There has been no change, therefore the issue is the same, and I hope he pays a big political price for it.

If you read what I wrote, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on that many points. If the pill is required as treatment for a documented condition, it should be covered.

Pregnancy is not 'punishment' but one of the most common consequences of sexual behavior, as God intended (or Darwin would explain), or both.

The subsidizing of elective behavior is the issue. She wants to be promiscuous and wants us to pay for it.

Different example: Let's say I am a fisherman. I also suffer from extreme motion sickness, and I take an anti-motion-sickness medication. It's better than dramamine, but it requires let's say a week to get into my system and protect me from the motion sickness I might get while out on my fishing boat.

Question: If I am taking the motion sickness medication I described above today, would it be a safe assumption that I plan to go fishing within a week?

The principle is the same with the logic surrounding the assumption for the motivation for using the birth control pill.

[mclem0822]

From today's USA Today Rush says " I have always tried to maintain a level of integrity and independence with this program"! Who the F*ck is he trying to fool with that quote Five Year Old's! That's one of the biggest loads of crap he's ever uttered, and that's saying something! Considering he's the Leader of the radio Right-Wing Propaganda machine for the Republican Party!

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

From today's USA Today Rush says " I have always tried to maintain a level of integrity and independence with this program"! Who the F*ck is he trying to fool with that quote Five Year Old's! That's one of the biggest loads of crap he's ever uttered, and that's saying something! Considering he's the Leader of the radio Right-Wing Propaganda machine for the Republican Party!

I guess you expressed your outraged with Maher calling Palin a dumb c*nt....and I am sure you equally questioned his apology much like you did Rush's


It is amazing to be that the media is focused on this nonsense when Roman is burning

All of the problems in Politics/Society and this is a hot topic on this forum?

Good grief you people are conditioned and dumb. Happy Purim.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by geeker2

I guess you expressed your outraged with Maher calling Palin a dumb c*nt....and I am sure you equally questioned his apology much like you did Rush's


It is amazing to be that the media is focused on this nonsense when Roman is burning

Maher should apologize as well. But he hasn't spent 20 years or so degrading females among others on a National radio show the way this Dirtbag Rush has!

[dellinger63]

Apparantly Ms. Fluke left out a few things

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

This lady is not a slut, she's crazy. Who enrolls at a College to fight for covered contraception?

I wonder if Santorum wants to be President to take away abortion/contraception rights

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Obama's "step back" is nothing of the sort. So now instead of it appearing as a line item that the employer must pay for, it's in the "must provide" section of coverage.

Before Obama's revision, the bill to the employer might look like this:

BASIC INSURANCE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $100
BIRTH CONTROL ADDITIONAL COVERAGE for Jane Doe: $20

Now, after Obama's 'accommodation', the revised bill is:

MINIMUM COVERAGE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $120

It's the easiest shell game to see through. There has been no change, therefore the issue is the same, and I hope he pays a big political price for it.

If you read what I wrote, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on that many points. If the pill is required as treatment for a documented condition, it should be covered.

Pregnancy is not 'punishment' but one of the most common consequences of sexual behavior, as God intended (or Darwin would explain), or both.

The subsidizing of elective behavior is the issue. She wants to be promiscuous and wants us to pay for it.

Different example: Let's say I am a fisherman. I also suffer from extreme motion sickness, and I take an anti-motion-sickness medication. It's better than dramamine, but it requires let's say a week to get into my system and protect me from the motion sickness I might get while out on my fishing boat.

Question: If I am taking the motion sickness medication I described above today, would it be a safe assumption that I plan to go fishing within a week?

The principle is the same with the logic surrounding the assumption for the motivation for using the birth control pill.

since many states already have requirements that the church has signed off on, i think it's disingenuous for them to now balk at the fed attempting what many states already have.
as for bc being covered by insurers-they cover surgeries that eliminate potential pregnancy...not exactly consistent to say they won't cover a pill, but do cover tubals and vasectomies.
would it be safe to assume you plan to fish? probably. would i be able to say with exactness the dates and frequencies? no. nor would i give a damn. and therein lies the rub. if this wasn't about sex-some wouldn't give a damn.

and i think you'll find that insurance companies already offer coverage for bc to many-but some employers balk-for their own bs reasons, hence the issue. again, if you open the door under the banner of religious freedom to keep BC from being covered, you're opening a pandora's box of other things that people could attempt to exclude from their employees.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.

So you are against government funding of birth control and also against welfare. You are for less government in our lives but want more government in our lives when it comes to making abortion illegal and putting expensive barricades in place for those that seek to exercise their rights. All the while you blame Obama for raising deficit. Why not just say you hate anything the democrats are for at least you won't look like such a hypocrite.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you are against government funding of birth control and also against welfare. You are for less government in our lives but want more government in our lives when it comes to making abortion illegal and putting expensive barricades in place for those that seek to exercise their rights. All the while you blame Obama for raising deficit. Why not just say you hate anything the democrats are for at least you won't look like such a hypocrite.

Abortion should never have been "legal". The wrongheadedness of the 1973 Supreme Court notwithstanding - abortion is murder.

As for increased government toward that end - that's a falsehood - we would just prosecute more murderers and their accomplices with the police and courts we now have.

Nice try. Oh, if the Democrats actually stand up for individual rights (instead of collective rights) for everybody, including white guys, maybe we'll give them a second look.