Archive

Has Rush gone too far?

  • HitsRus
    That's a given, but this all comes down to the fact that the really conservative (socially) people in this country would rather birth control not be used to better jive with their bronze age religion than look at things like a rational person and realize that contraceptives prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies, two of the things they seem to hate so much for costing them money.
    Oh, stop it with your hatred for religion and religious moral concepts....it clouds your usually perceptive judgement.

    'Rational' informed people realize that birth control drugs/devices/procedures do not prevent disease( except for condoms which are not really the issue here.) Realize also that the government's own program, Medicaid, provides these services...and we see how well that is working, right?

    Secondly, I can state that as a medical provider, that drugs have secondary uses as well as primary uses, and that all it would take to get a birth control drug covered would be a letter from a physician detailing why a certain drug is being used to treat a medical condition. Hence, a birth control drug for 'lifestyle' choices may not be covered under an insurance policy...but the same drug used as a hormonal regulator for ovarian conditions would be. Arguements that state that women suffering from medical conditions would be denied coverage are blatantly false.
  • Skyhook79
    stlouiedipalma;1103574 wrote:Sadly, there are millions who listen to Rush. Many on this site probably listen to him, although they'd never admit to doing so.

    I guess this goes back to how many of you object to any kind of health care being free of charge. The fact that someone can get something for nothing must really stick in your craws. I wonder how many of you have health insurance that covers Viagra or one of the ED medications. Of course, you'd never admit to ever using it, would you?

    I'll give Rush one thing, though. I'd be willing to bet he paid for all of the oxy he ate for all those years. So much of it that it cost him his hearing, I understand. Unless, of course, all of those prescriptions he shopped around for were covered by his health insurance. Wouldn't that be the end-all?

    And for any of you to agree with his characterization of this student, I'd be willing to bet your wives, girlfriends or daughters never see your posts.
    ED is a diagnosed medical condition that requires prescription medication i.e. Viagra and should be covered by Health Ins. What medical condition does a condom treat?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    HitsRus;1103730 wrote:Oh, stop it with your hatred for religion and religious moral concepts....it clouds your usually perceptive judgement.

    'Rational' informed people realize that birth control drugs/devices/procedures do not prevent disease( except for condoms which are not really the issue here.) Realize also that the government's own program, Medicaid, provides these services...and we see how well that is working, right?

    Secondly, I can state that as a medical provider, that drugs have secondary uses as well as primary uses, and that all it would take to get a birth control drug covered would be a letter from a physician detailing why a certain drug is being used to treat a medical condition. Hence, a birth control drug for 'lifestyle' choices may not be covered under an insurance policy...but the same drug used as a hormonal regulator for ovarian conditions would be. Arguements that state that women suffering from medical conditions would be denied coverage are blatantly false.
    I'm a guy, and thus have the perspective that guys should have little or nothing to say about how women take care of their own bodies. So, I rarely have an opinion on abortion or birth control.
    But, there is health aspects to it.
    I can cite five examples: Three family members, my girl friend, and one friend, who all take birth control for health reasons. It is mainly to keep in check ovarian cysts, and Endometriosis. My examples don't use for it birth control, but to keep everything in check. So, there are health aspects, and us guys have no real concept of the issue at all.
  • Bigdogg
    HitsRus;1103328 wrote:No shocker that doggie posts that, and tries to spin that this is what it's about.
    Fail.... Just like the loser party he identifies with.





    People on welfare already have birth control provided on their medical cards. This is about private employers being mandated to provide it to people who have jobs...and who, for the price of a small flat screen TV, could afford to buy contraception on their own.

    This is strictly about control( government control, not birth control) and a certain political party trying to buy votes by somehow making this a women's rights issue.
    Did you pappy ever tell you about people who assume? I am actually a registered Republican who votes independently you boob!

    I don't have any problem in this case being with the majority of the people in the US and against the majority of the nuts on this forum just like SB 5. :cool:
  • Bigdogg
    gut;1103711 wrote:I think the woman's argument was based on birth control used to treate a friend's ovarian condition. If she's including costs of doctor's visits, $1000 a year might not be far off. But that's kind of distorting the picture.

    Like I said, if it's a problem then date guys with jobs that can pay for it. At the end of the day, is this argument really that different than demanding to be reimbursed for food, clothes, etc..? Sex, for the most part, is a consumption choice. We shouldn't be subsidizing consumption choices such as this. It's really not all that different from saying someone has a right to free toothpaste or free skin moisturizer (actually, you'd argue toothpaste is more of a basic need).

    It's not a necessity or basic need - if you can't afford to have a kid or afford birth control, then don't have sex. It's really not something I, the taxpayer, should pay for. On the other hand, in cases where birth control is used to treat medical conditions, then perhaps it should be included. But otherwise the corollary I might make is this is similar to cosmetic procedures that typically are not covered by insurance.

    The argument from these women basically goes "I want to have sex, pay for my birth control". Fantastic. I want a new car - should the taxpayer finance that, too?
    I don't know of any doctors who are going to prescribe a medication without an appointment. As a parent with 4 daughters I can tell you that 3000 a year for their "female" appointments is not out of line.
  • redstreak one
    HitsRus;1103328 wrote:No shocker that doggie posts that, and tries to spin that this is what it's about.
    Fail.... Just like the loser party he identifies with.




    People on welfare already have birth control provided on their medical cards. This is about private employers being mandated to provide it to people who have jobs...and who, for the price of a small flat screen TV, could afford to buy contraception on their own.

    This is strictly about control( government control, not birth control) and a certain political party trying to buy votes by somehow making this a women's rights issue.
    ^^^^ We have a winner! Having children while on welfare is a raise, and if they go to school and test low enough to get an IEP, they also qualify for SSI. It is considered a disability, so the mother gets more money! You could put birth contol pills in some welfare checks, and they would be sold or thrown out!
  • HitsRus
    I don't know of any doctors who are going to prescribe a medication without an appointment. As a parent with 4 daughters I can tell you that 3000 a year for their "female" appointments is not out of line.
    ...and these appointments with their OB-GYN are already covered without the use of government mandates!
    I can cite five examples: Three family members, my girl friend, and one friend, who all take birth control for health reasons. It is mainly to keep in check ovarian cysts, and Endometriosis. My examples don't use for it birth control, but to keep everything in check. So, there are health aspects, and us guys have no real concept of the issue at all.
    ...and because it is a medical condition( not just birth control) these drugs are covered too without the use of government mandates!


    It is important to realize that arguement such as these are not really about women's rights as much as they are about lifestyle convienience and certain politician's abusing their power in order to cater to a certain voting bloc. Not mandating 'free birth control' coverage will not harm a women ability to obtain these drugs for a legitimate medical reason.
  • BGFalcons82
    Aren't mandates fun?! This is what happens when our central government commands all to comply. Eventually, everyone gets trampled.

    Mandate everyone breathing must have health insurance? Check
    Mandate what policies all health care providers must provide? Check
    Mandate what these policies must cost? Check
    Mandate all health care providers must provide "free" contraception regardless of 1st Amendment violations? Check
    What's next....mandating abortions must be provided "free"...and as often as possible?

    For those that think ObamaKare solves all and is the best thing that ever happened since FDR mandated social security for all private citizens, the regulation-writers will eventually write a mandate that affects you in a way you don't want. Remember when it was, "America, land of the free"? Oh, what rotten times those were. We're certainly progressing towards someone's vision of utopia...but it isn't mine.
  • gut
    BGFalcons82;1103927 wrote:Aren't mandates fun?! This is what happens when our central government commands all to comply. Eventually, everyone gets trampled.
    I think you hit on a lot of key points. Perfect example of a govt unable to get out of its own way. They are mandating extensive and comprehensive coverage when anyone with a brain knows that you buy insurance to protect yourself against catastrophic outcomes. If you are in your 20's, 30's even into your 40's....even if you're married and have kids...this is not the plan you'd be well-advised to purchase. The purchase of insurance is not a rational decision, you always end-up paying more than your expected losses, but it is rational risk-aversion to insure the fat tail that wipes you out financially.

    OK, so you're birth control is going to be subsidized by everyone, including yourself. You save a few bucks. Then your savings is wiped out (and then some) by your subsidizing everything else for everyone else. This is going way beyond being a safety net. We have ignorant politicians pandering to an equally ignorant public, and it's killing our economy.

    A one-size-fits-all mandate is a negative net value for the majority of Americans. Most of us are just too stupid to realize it.
  • 2kool4skool
    Lol. Sponsors start threatening to drop and Rush apologizes like a bitch
  • gut
    2kool4skool;1103939 wrote:Lol. Sponsors start threatening to drop and Rush apologizes like a bitch
    I guess Tylenol and Advil didn't come thru to pick-up the slack :laugh:
  • isadore
    lol
    "Rush Limbaugh issued an apology today to the Georgetown law student he branded a "slut" in three days of attacks, after she argued to Congress that the expense for her birth control should be covered by her employer's health care plan.He said he "did not mean a personal attack" on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student.
    "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
    http://news.yahoo.com/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-calling-sandra-fluke-slut-232701096--abc-news.html what a wus.
  • HitsRus
    Mandate everyone breathing must have health insurance? Check
    Mandate what policies all health care providers must provide? Check
    Mandate what these policies must cost? Check
    Mandate all health care providers must provide "free" contraception regardless of 1st Amendment violations? Check
    What's next....mandating abortions must be provided "free"...and as often as possible?
    Spot on.
    What I truely resent is this being framed as...and people falling into the trap of framing this as...a women's rights issue when it is clear that no one is restricted from using or obtaining birth control drugs from their physician. It is soley a debate of who should pay for it( and yes...someone will pay for it), and whether the government should/can mandate anything...even if/when it conflicts with long established and long held religious beliefs. If the Feds succeed at defeating that which arguably is protected by the Constitution, then there probably is very little that they couldn't mandate.
    We are barely into Obamacare and already we have that which BGfalcons so appropriately listed. I have to wonder what other special interest groups will line up to get the taxpayer to pick up their faves 'for free'.....and the willing politician up for relection is oh so eager to accomodate.
  • isadore
    gosh I am a jehovah witness employer and gosh and my beliefs don't allow me to provide funds to give my employees blood transfusions.
    or I am a Christian Science and I dont believe in providing medical treatments for my employees.
  • gut
    isadore;1104170 wrote:gosh I am a jehovah witness employer and gosh and my beliefs don't allow me to provide funds to give my employees blood transfusions.
    or I am a Christian Science and I dont believe in providing medical treatments for my employees.
    Yeah, well in a free market the employer shouldn't be forced to provide any kind of healthcare at all. They could instead just give the difference in cash to their employees and leave them to fend for themselves. Otherwise you're free to seek other employment that provides better total comp.

    Single people or people without children and/or living a clean/healthy lifestyle which actually be better off in such a scenario. These people already subsidize others in their group plan and now we want them to subsidize everyone else, as well. Such hidden taxes mask just how much the govt takes from our pocket.

    I mean, do people honestly believe those employers who don't provide healthcare now are going to dip into their pocket out of a sense of righteousness? Heck no, those employers will pay for the added expense by elmiinating jobs and/or wage cuts.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    Bigdogg;1103836 wrote:I don't know of any doctors who are going to prescribe a medication without an appointment. As a parent with 4 daughters I can tell you that 3000 a year for their "female" appointments is not out of line.
    No. The appointment is covered by insurance, what do you have, a $20 co-pay? Pills shouldn't cost more than $40/month, and that is on the expensive end.

    Why does the "left" lie so much? What good it gain? Do you think everyone is so stupid to not pick out the BS? Hundreds of thousands of young women use birth control, do you really think it costs $1,000/year?

    I'm at a loss.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Manhattan Buckeye;1104227 wrote:No. The appointment is covered by insurance, what do you have, a $20 co-pay? Pills shouldn't cost more than $40/month, and that is on the expensive end.

    Why does the "left" lie so much? What good it gain? Do you think everyone is so stupid to not pick out the BS? Hundreds of thousands of young women use birth control, do you really think it costs $1,000/year?

    I'm at a loss.
    I'm guessing he means with the appointments, procedures, and then the medication. Which, I could see, considering how often the examples I use head to the Doc. and obtain meds for their needed symptoms.

    How I am seeing this whole debate is bascially trying to frame birth control as just so women can have sex. Which, is false. It is a legit medication, just like other medications like Lipitor, Zoloft, and Cipro. As such, it should be framed under that context. Anything otherwise just ignores the reality of the many uses of it today.

    On your last point, spare me. Both sides "lie" as they see fit to construct their own arguments. I've seen articles from both sides that "lie" or leave out facts to support their own argument. Just saying the left does it is naive and illogical.
  • HitsRus
    How I am seeing this whole debate is bascially trying to frame birth control as just so women can have sex. Which, is false. It is a legit medication, just like other medications like Lipitor, Zoloft, and Cipro. As such, it should be framed under that context. Anything otherwise just ignores the reality of the many uses of it today.
    Did you read anything I posted ...at all? I'm pretty sure that hormonal regulators used for a legitimate medical need are covered under any circumstances. What isn't/wouldn't be covered is using these drugs for birth control only.

    It is standard insurance policy to consider the reason before denying or confirming coverage. A certain medical procedure will be covered because there is a medical reason...that same procedure in another case may be denied because it is 'cosmetic' or deemed not medically necessary.
    In the same way, using hormonal regulator drugs (aka birth control pills) to treat ovarian cysts is a covered expense, while using the same drug for convienience would not be.
    Insurance coverage/payment is directly correlated to benefits/premiums. The more benefits provided, the more one would pay in premiums...and it is kept in check by the marketplace. Nothing is for 'free'.
    This is the problem when government gets involved....medical decisions become political. With Obamacare expect more of it.
    Get goverenment out of healthcare ...NOW.
  • BGFalcons82
    isadore;1104170 wrote:gosh I am a jehovah witness employer and gosh and my beliefs don't allow me to provide funds to give my employees blood transfusions.
    or I am a Christian Science and I dont believe in providing medical treatments for my employees.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    For decades, the Left, with the able backing of the ACLU's stable of lawyers, has argued against placing navitity scenes and menorahs on government-owned property, against placing the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls, and for the removal of all references to God from anything related to governmental property. They pound their fists and proudly state that the state cannot promote religion based on the First Amendment.

    Now, for the first time in my lifetime, government is in the act of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Bill of Rights is very clear on this issue if you can understand the English language. Yet, here we are, debating whether or not the same government should provide free contraception, up to AND INCLUDING sterilization and an abortion pill, against the tenets of one of the world's most prevalent religious organizations. I'll ask anyone in favor of free contraception for all provided by all to answer one simple question:

    Which is more important for our government, to protect the First Amendment or to provide free contraception/abortive medications for its citizens?
  • isadore
    gut;1104196 wrote:Yeah, well in a free market the employer shouldn't be forced to provide any kind of healthcare at all. They could instead just give the difference in cash to their employees and leave them to fend for themselves. Otherwise you're free to seek other employment that provides better total comp.

    Single people or people without children and/or living a clean/healthy lifestyle which actually be better off in such a scenario. These people already subsidize others in their group plan and now we want them to subsidize everyone else, as well. Such hidden taxes mask just how much the govt takes from our pocket.

    I mean, do people honestly believe those employers who don't provide healthcare now are going to dip into their pocket out of a sense of righteousness? Heck no, those employers will pay for the added expense by elmiinating jobs and/or wage cuts.
    yes it would be best if we had single payer system for providing the basic right of healthcare.
  • BGFalcons82
    By the way, where is FairwoodKing on this issue of free contraception for women? He should be on here demanding free condoms for men he dates I would think. How dare women think this issue is solely theirs to promote when the gay community clearly has a need for free condoms.

    I wonder how the "religion of peace" followers would feel about providing free condoms to homosexual men? Their religion/Sharia is squarely against the sexual practices of those like FairwoodKing. Will ObamaKare force the muslim community to pay for homosexual's condoms? Once again, a mandate eventually tramples everyone.
  • isadore
    BGFalcons82;1104325 wrote:By the way, where is FairwoodKing on this issue of free contraception for women? He should be on here demanding free condoms for men he dates I would think. How dare women think this issue is solely theirs to promote when the gay community clearly has a need for free condoms.

    I wonder how the "religion of peace" followers would feel about providing free condoms to homosexual men? Their religion/Shari is squarely against the sexual practices of those like FairwoodKing.
    Well they just dont have that problem, ""In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Ahmadinejad said. So no homosexuals, no issue.
  • Footwedge
    I see where the fatman has been apologizing all over the place to appease his sponsors.:)
  • fish82
    ptown_trojans_1;1104289 wrote:I'm guessing he means with the appointments, procedures, and then the medication. Which, I could see, considering how often the examples I use head to the Doc. and obtain meds for their needed symptoms.

    How I am seeing this whole debate is bascially trying to frame birth control as just so women can have sex. Which, is false. It is a legit medication, just like other medications like Lipitor, Zoloft, and Cipro. As such, it should be framed under that context. Anything otherwise just ignores the reality of the many uses of it today.

    On your last point, spare me. Both sides "lie" as they see fit to construct their own arguments. I've seen articles from both sides that "lie" or leave out facts to support their own argument. Just saying the left does it is naive and illogical.
    88% of women use it strictly to prevent pregnancy. To frame it as primarily a "medication" is silly.
  • gut
    isadore;1104318 wrote:yes it would be best if we had single payer system for providing the basic right of healthcare.
    Sure. Because monopolies usually are good for the consumer...