Post Reply
Page 3 of 20  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Rush Limbaugh Calls Student Denied Spot At Contraception Hearing A ‘Slut’
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 4:41PM #21
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:11PM, TemplarS wrote:


Mar 1, 2012 -- 3:37PM, Girlchristian wrote:


"Outrageous" sells whether it's Limbaugh, the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Simon Cowell on American Idol, etc...





There's a difference.


The Kardashians are useless, the Jersey Shore people are stupid, Simon Cowell is abrasive.  But none of them pretend to be more than they are.  They do  not pretend they have anything serious to say on public policy; their useless or stupid or abrasive opinions relate to clothes and bars and music, not to serious questions about the way the nation ought to be run.


In short, they may be irritating, but they are not dangerous in the least.




Agree, Templar.................

GC


Extensions don't always apply.


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 4:52PM #22
TemplarS
Posts: 6,868

I am not myself convinced that insurance companies should be forced to pay 100% for contraceptives.  Not for moral reasons; it is simply a matter of why contraceptives and not hundreds of other drugs?  Between me and my wife and my kids, we are on drugs for high blood pressure, cholesterol, thyroid, asthma- all potentially serious conditions. They are covered by my insurance, but not 100%.


Covering 100% of the cost of a drug with no regard as to cost seems to me to be a recipe for skyrocketing drug prices, and of benefit mainly to the drug companies.  You can't have cost control if people have no skin in the game.


Anyhow, to the moral point- these drugs are (I understand) prescribed for reasons other than contraception.  So Limbaugh's comments were ignorant as well as offensive.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 4:54PM #23
rabello
Posts: 21,698

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Erey wrote:


Personally,


I don't like the slut language or the hint at promiscuity being at the base of any of this.  That kind of banter is a big turn off to me.



However, I do think Rush has a point, why should tax payers be asked to subsidize someone's sex life?  If you have a sex life shouldn't you pay your own way? 


I know there are reasons why we want to pay for everyone's birth control, I guess because there is no excuse not to use it if you are not ready for children.  But I still think on the other hand if you are having sex you should cover your own expenses associated with that.   I can certainly see both sides.  I do tend to at the heart of things feel like people should pay for their own birth control. 




Even for married women, Erey, those who, with their husbands have decided they can't afford to have any more children?  


Condoms, I think, are the cheapest way to go...but....would husbands faithfully use condoms as if they were teenaged boys?


As it turns out, Ms Fluke would have testified about her friend who need a prescription for birth control pills for a very painful ovarian cyst problem, and bleeding problem she was having -- not for "birth control," at all.   A prescription her friend could not afford as a college student.   


Limbaugh made an ugly ignoramus of himself, and I don't mean his physical ugliness, which is a known quantity.


Plus, it isn't about tax payers subsidizing women's birth control costs. It's about insurance companies covering those costs, the same way they do Viagra.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 4:57PM #24
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,393

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:52PM, TemplarS wrote:


I am not myself convinced that insurance companies should be forced to pay 100% for contraceptives.  Not for moral reasons; it is simply a matter of why contraceptives and not hundreds of other drugs?  Between me and my wife and my kids, we are on drugs for high blood pressure, cholesterol, thyroid, asthma- all potentially serious conditions. They are covered by my insurance, but not 100%.


Agree. There is nothing special about birth control that means it should be covered 100% when other drugs are not.


Covering 100% of the cost of a drug with no regard as to cost seems to me to be a recipe for skyrocketing drug prices, and of benefit mainly to the drug companies.  You can't have cost control if people have no skin in the game.


Agree. Studies show that co-pays actually make people more conscious of their health and the decisions they make than when they don't have money invested.


Anyhow, to the moral point- these drugs are (I understand) prescribed for reasons other than contraception.  So Limbaugh's comments were ignorant as well as offensive.


Agree.





"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 5:03PM #25
mountain_man
Posts: 39,707

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:52PM, TemplarS wrote:

I am not myself convinced that insurance companies should be forced to pay 100% for contraceptives....


Cost savings and higher profits. It costs less to supply birth control than it does to pay for a birth. Also, quite often birth control is prescribed for purposes other than preventing birth.


Insurance covers many other drugs, so why not birth control? The proper question is not "why should they?" but "why shouldn't they?"

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 5:06PM #26
rabello
Posts: 21,698

I think most women would not mind a co-pay.   Most of us already know there's always a co-pay with prescriptions.   However, the Republicans are using contraception, like abortion, as a way to ruin what they call ObamaCare.  Ms Fluke was able to testify about her friend's medical problems in a second hearing the Congressional Democrats held, was broadcast by C-Span and can be seen on the C-Span website.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 5:10PM #27
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786


Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:52PM, TemplarS wrote:

I am not myself convinced that insurance companies should be forced to pay 100% for contraceptives....




Oh I give up. I can not believe anyone would question such a thing. It is anti women no matter how one wants to play word games and cognitive dissonance.


It is more then just "birth control" It is the desire to deny women basic medical care and medicine. Morality means that insurance companies pay for this.


Unfriggin believable that this is being discussed. What is it with people these day that see this is something that should be debated. Who are you, that you feel it is alright to deny women health care? Because yes birth control medication is part of women's overall health care. People take birth control medication for many things not involving birth and pregnancy control.


And I know it is a forgotten knowledge, but pregnancy is dangerous, people die, yes still die in childbirth and pregnancy. Preventing it is medically, necessary for some women.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 5:12PM #28
Erey
Posts: 18,940

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:54PM, rabello wrote:


Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Erey wrote:


Personally,


I don't like the slut language or the hint at promiscuity being at the base of any of this.  That kind of banter is a big turn off to me.



However, I do think Rush has a point, why should tax payers be asked to subsidize someone's sex life?  If you have a sex life shouldn't you pay your own way? 


I know there are reasons why we want to pay for everyone's birth control, I guess because there is no excuse not to use it if you are not ready for children.  But I still think on the other hand if you are having sex you should cover your own expenses associated with that.   I can certainly see both sides.  I do tend to at the heart of things feel like people should pay for their own birth control. 




Even for married women, Erey, those who, with their husbands have decided they can't afford to have any more children?  


Condoms, I think, are the cheapest way to go...but....would husbands faithfully use condoms as if they were teenaged boys?


As it turns out, Ms Fluke would have testified about her friend who need a prescription for birth control pills for a very painful ovarian cyst problem, and bleeding problem she was having -- not for "birth control," at all.   A prescription her friend could not afford as a college student.   


Limbaugh made an ugly ignoramus of himself, and I don't mean his physical ugliness, which is a known quantity.


Plus, it isn't about tax payers subsidizing women's birth control costs. It's about insurance companies covering those costs, the same way they do Viagra.




I think truly people should be expected to pay for their own birth control pills, their own condoms, their own diaphrams, their own whatever else they might use regardless of their marital status or what kind of behavior one can expect from the husband.    If someone needs a certain drug for pain, then they need that for pain.  I am sure the lady with the ovarian cyst is paying for pain pills too as well as BC pills.



I did some looking and I see no basis for this insurance companies covering Viagra.  Occasionaly you will find an insurance company that will cover viagra for medical reasons (as in there is no errection happening without the drug).  But that is far from typicall.   Insurance companies vary on the pill but they are more likely to cover birthcontrol pills than viagra.  I think it is another looney lefty myth about the viagra.  Prove if you want to stick to that. 



Now all I am saying is that the point of should we (the tax payers) subsidize people's sex lives is a valid question.  One I think is worth exploring.  And the side question being shouldn't people that have a sex life pay for their own way with it? 


I am well aware that plenty of people think that birthcontrol, abortions, any kind of medical intervention should be 100% subsidized by the tax payer.  They have their reasons for that.  These are valid reasons but I disagree with them anyway.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 5:37PM #29
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Erey wrote:


Personally,


I don't like the slut language or the hint at promiscuity being at the base of any of this.  That kind of banter is a big turn off to me.


However, I do think Rush has a point, why should tax payers be asked to subsidize someone's sex life? 



To help keep the population down.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 6:02PM #30
IreneAdler
Posts: 2,849

Mar 1, 2012 -- 3:58PM, TPaine wrote:


Limbaugh doubled down on his sexist comments comments yesterday about Sandra Fluke on his show today by saying that if women use insurance-covered birth control they should have to post sex tapes on line.

"So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch." Link


IMO, it's not surprising that the Drugster (as Ed Schultz calls him) would enjoy that. He could take some Viagra, settle down in a comfortable chair, and actually pretend he is a real man for awhile. Since he is in his fourth marriage since 1977 one can assume that his wives have not been overly thrilled by his performance.





So ol' Slimeball is a porn meister.


No surprise.


If we are to subsidize birth control, my only expectation is that it be used properly - no little surprise babies down the line.


I know he speaks so as to inflame, but really, post home sex videos? Yuk!


How about asking that subsidized birth control require the user attend university (or other schooling)?  That's an equally inflammatory stance-but a lot less gross.


 


Irene.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 20  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook