Rush Limbaugh has finally jumped the shark - advertisers abandoning him

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

No, we have a nation of self-identified moral zealots trying to force their personal sexual "morality" down the throats of every other American.

Birth control pills are a prescribed medication just like antibiotics or steroids. Of course preventive medication should be covered by insurance as preventive health care if a doctor prescribes them within the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. For some to make the government step into the doctors office, examine a patient's motives, and take that right away is undemocratic theocratic zealotry on the part of a few.

People have individual rights, and the freedom from having others opinions, especially religious, forced upon us is the cornerstone of this democracy.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, we have a nation of self-identified moral zealots trying to force their personal sexual "morality" down the throats of every other American.

Birth control pills are a prescribed medication just like antibiotics or steroids. Of course preventive medication should be covered by insurance as preventive health care if a doctor prescribes them within the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. For some to make the government step into the doctors office, examine a patient's motives, and take that right away is undemocratic theocratic zealotry on the part of a few.

People have individual rights, and the freedom from having others opinions, especially religious, forced upon us is the cornerstone of this democracy.

It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.

Not sure she ever addressed the issue of her lifestyle, break away from being a ditto head long enough to address the facts.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.

again, ms. fluke was discussing BC for medical reasons. not sure why you continue to drag this in another direction.
and again, her testimony had to do with private insurers, not medicaid or other govt. subsidized care.

Yeah and I'm sure these medical conditions won't differ from those who receive medical marijuana.

"Oh doctah! In sick! I've had nausea evah since I got off teh birf control."

It's just so easy to pull one over on Americans these days. Just look at last night. A nation of dullards.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.

Did you even read her testimony? She didn't even talk about herself once. For all anyone knows, she could be a virgin. Your last sentence is painfully ignorant.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Did you even read her testimony? She didn't even talk about herself once. For all anyone knows, she could be a virgin. Your last sentence is painfully ignorant.

Then she has an agenda and I want to know who is pulling her strings.

Wake up to the propaganda and diversionary tactics of the enemy. She is not on our side.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Then she has an agenda and I want to know who is pulling her strings.

Wake up to the propaganda and diversionary tactics of the enemy. She is not on our side.

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.

Does Riot have a daughter?

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/sandra-flu...alth-insurance

[dellinger63]

I think it's all about choice.

Ms. Fluke and all women certainly should have the choice to receive contraception.

But religion and specifically the Catholic church should be allowed the choice to stay away from providing something that goes against church doctrine and again if we are to believe Obama & Co., the cost of omitting coverage would result in paying a higher premium.

Should Ms. Fluke & Co. want/need contraceptive coverage while in college they should avoid schools like Georgetown, Marquette, Loyola and Notre Dame or perhaps a private charity could step in and provide supplemental coverage. Then again there's the old fashion way of providing for yourself but that's a dying phenomena.

BTW there is a hint of truth in 'Catholic girls start much too late'.

Disclaimer: If at anytime viagra is covered in a group policy bc pills certainly should as well.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I think it's all about choice.

Ms. Fluke and all women certainly should have the choice to receive contraception.

But religion and specifically the Catholic church should be allowed the choice to stay away from providing something that goes against church doctrine and again if we are to believe Obama & Co., the cost of omitting coverage would result in paying a higher premium.

Should Ms. Fluke & Co. want/need contraceptive coverage while in college they should avoid schools like Georgetown, Marquette, Loyola and Notre Dame or perhaps a private charity could step in and provide supplemental coverage. Then again there's the old fashion way of providing for yourself but that's a dying phenomena.

BTW there is a hint of truth in 'Catholic girls start much too late'.

Disclaimer: If at anytime viagra is covered in a group policy bc pills certainly should as well.

it is, has been since day one.
again, if you open the door to religious reasons to opt out of certain coverages, the amount of items being excluded would rise tremendously. or do you keep ignoring that.
also, again, the church already has yielded the point in many states with this same argument.
men get sex pills paid for, women don't. are their medical reasons for viagra other than sex? not that i know of. the pill? yes, many.
yet insurers cover tubals and vasectomies. so, permanent sterility? ok... flexible sterility? tough luck.
you guys keep saying the issue is personal responsibility, but its not. the issue is there is a double standard.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you open the door to religious reasons to opt out of certain coverages, the amount of items being excluded would rise tremendously. or do you keep ignoring that..

This is not about opting out for cost savings, punishment, bias towards women etc. This is about Church doctrine.

You keep thinking this will be abused by opting out of say arthritis coverage etc. It isn't and until we cross that road its reality is only in people's minds.

Again, you keep ignoring that if Obama is right, a policy for a woman with no contraceptive coverage should be MORE EXPENSIVE than coverage with contraception. So you can eliminate cost as a motive.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

This is not about opting out for cost savings, punishment, bias towards women etc. This is about Church doctrine.

You keep thinking this will be abused by opting out of say arthritis coverage etc. It isn't and until we cross that road its reality is only in people's minds.

Again, you keep ignoring that if Obama is right, a policy for a woman with no contraceptive coverage should be MORE EXPENSIVE than coverage with contraception. So you can eliminate cost as a motive.

the church should have Nothing to do with insurance coverage. But than again, in my opinion, the government should also have nothing to do with insurance coverage.

It's pretty ridiculous if a company does not cover medicine that prevents ovarian cysts. But on the other side of it.. healthy women who want to avoid pregnancy should be able to afford the $10 to $30 dollars per month it costs to get bitch control pills. If your current insurance doesn't cover it.. either switch plans or pay for it out of your pocket. what i DO NOT want, is government in the health care business.

I have sympathy for the women who need the pills for health reasons. I don't have sympathy for the other group for a reason. I take a medication that literally keeps me alive. I'd dehydrate and die of kidney failure in a matter of weeks without this medication. I work and have insurance through my company. But, according to United Healthcare (they suck, btw), this medication I take is not considered preventative. Eventhough it prevents my death. So I pay full price for this medication every month, eventhough I'm still paying my insurance premiums which includes a ridiculous $2,400 deductable anyway.

Oh yeah.. before Obamacare completely changed the insurance policies that we are offered to pay for.. I simply paid a $10 deductable for this medication every month. Now it costs 5 times that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

This is not about opting out for cost savings, punishment, bias towards women etc. This is about Church doctrine.

You keep thinking this will be abused by opting out of say arthritis coverage etc. It isn't and until we cross that road its reality is only in people's minds.

Again, you keep ignoring that if Obama is right, a policy for a woman with no contraceptive coverage should be MORE EXPENSIVE than coverage with contraception. So you can eliminate cost as a motive.

it is very much about those things. there is a double standard. the cost is higher for an ed drug than bc, yet ed is covered. as for the church argument...why do you continue to ignore the facts? those include that many states already have bc mandates in place which include churches- that the church has accepted. also, as i said before, if you start excluding based on religion you open up many folks to losing coverages for other services. ive made that point several times, yet you and others choose to ignore that. you said if viagra was paid for then nevermind..it is paid for yet you're still arguing.
of course arthritis wouldnt come up for religious reasons. what about treatment for ectopic pregnancy? blood transfusions? there are religions against that. organ donation? some are against that. you want your pastor, or your employer to decide your treatments?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Did you even read her testimony? She didn't even talk about herself once. For all anyone knows, she could be a virgin. Your last sentence is painfully ignorant.

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

you're probably a really nice guy but might suffer from same tone deafness rush does.

it's creepy that you'd even ask.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're probably a really nice guy but might suffer from same tone deafness rush does.

it's creepy that you'd even ask.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I forgot that nobody can take a JOKE anymore. Polticial correctness rules all.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

Who makes final determination of virginity?....I'd appoint my Dr Hassan bin Lade....

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

she's 30's old. Odds are she is not a virgin. But the point is, you said "It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle" when if you actually read this Fluke testimony she never even talked about herself or her lifestyle. She was talking about others and specifically women who had conditions (cysts) that need to be controlled through birth control pills.

So I wanted to make sure your incorrect statement was corrected. Certainly, nobody outside of Fluke and her friends / lovers know if she is a "slut" "prostitute" or a virgin or living in a monogomous relationship.