What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.
What right does Rush have to judge this woman? What Sandra Fluke actually said is that women need to use contraceptives for more than one reason. In particular, Fluke has a friend who used the pill to control ovarian cysts, and not prevent pregnancy. The friend was denied coverage, couldn't afford the drugs. A cyst developed and grew to the size of tennis ball. It had to be surgically removed along with her ovary.
This whole argument over employers covering birth control is bogus. Practically speaking, since contraceptives are medicine, they need to be dispensed under the supervision of a doctor. Therefore they need to be part of health insurance, and it would be stupidly bureaucratic to require a separate policy to cover it. Aren't Republicans against stupid bureaucratic nonsense?
What's more, as I (and Jon Stewart) have pointed out before, the employer is paying for birth control whether it's through health insurance or the employee's salary. This is inconsistent, unless they're also arguing that they have the right to fire anyone who uses contraception. Is this moral objection to birth control really just the first domino in the conservative plot to allow employers to discriminate against people they don't like, be they contraceptive users, Muslims, Baptists, Mormons, atheists, blacks, Latinos and women?
It's particular ironic that Limbaugh is making a big deal out of this. In 2009 Limbaugh was stopped by customs when he returned from the Dominican Republic for having a bottle of Viagra that was made out in his doctor's name. (He should have used the alias "Rash Limp-bough".) This was after he was caught abusing prescription drugs, doctor-shopping and skirting banking laws by withdrawing cash from his banks just below the threshold that would require it to be reported. He then sent his housekeeper out with shoeboxes full of money to buy prescription drugs illegally to support the addiction that may have cost him his hearing, requiring him to have cochlear implants.
At the time of the Viagra bust Rush had been divorced from his third wife for five years and was seeing the woman who would become his fourth wife, Kathryn Rogers, who is 26 years younger than he is. They have no children, so, as Rush would, I'll just assume that she was using the pill to prevent pregnancy (I can't imagine someone like Limbaugh even considering a condom or diaphragm). I'll also assume her employer was paying for her health insurance, which in Limbaugh's fantasy world would mean she is a slut and a prostitute, her employer is a pimp and he is a john. As well as a fornicator.
Why isn't Rick Santorum holding up Rush Limbaugh as Exhibit A for all society's ills?
Sandra Fluke's motivation for speaking out appears to be outrage over the injustice that caused her friend to lose an ovary. Rush Limbaugh's motivation seems to be to slap down another slutty "feminazi" because she dared speak up instead of just lying there and taking it.
No wonder this man has gone through four wives.
16 comments:
I shouldn't need my employer, my insurer or my govt's permission to put into my body what I deem appropriate. That should be my decision with consultation by a doctor. And since it is my decision and my body, it should be me that bears the cost - not anyone else.
As soon as any other entity has a say, it is at the expense of my freedom to choose. Doesn't matter if it is pot, alcohol, tobacco or medicine.
I think women should have access to contraception if they want to buy it, too. I also think employers who want to fund those choices through their health insurance should be free to do so, and insurers who think they can sell policies that cover those choices have the freedom to offer them. In fact, all of those opportunities exist right now. There is no law against purchasing contraception, no law against insurance companies covering it, and no law against employers providing it for free. I’m also perfectly fine with the concept of keeping the decision between the woman, her sex partner, her doctor, and God — but then again, I’m not the one trying to force employers and insurance companies to take part in that decision.
Where is it written that when all of a sudden if you want something and don’t have the money for it, somebody else has to pay for it?
Nikto, remember that nobody in the GOP field ever threatened to take away anybody’s contraception during this campaign so who cares whether or not Rush or his wife have used contraception in the past. Contraception is already easily accessible and someone paying $25k a year to go to Georgetown law can certainly afford some contraception.
You don't know her motivations Nikto. First of all, she's not a 23 year old, she's a 30 year old liberal feminist activist.
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/CurrentPILS.htm
In her tirade against male hegemony a couple of days ago she claimed that her birth control will cost her $3,000 for her three years of law school. A month of birth control pills cost $9 at Walmart/$108 a year and $324 for her stay at Georgetown.
Bill Maher called Palin a cunt and we didn't get any writings from Nikto after that happened. Rush just probably gets more and better looking women than Nikto does.
Well, Nikto has been married to the same (and only) woman for over 30 years so better looking women isn't on his mind:) Last time I checked, Rush has had how many wives? Who has the family values again? Oh, that's right, the liberal...just like fucking always.
The issue isn't about birth control and that's where people show their ignorance. Many women are prescribed the pill for health reasons, not contraception. If their employer doesn't cover it for religious or moral reasons, then they are refusing basic health care for one of their employees. Ms. Fluke's main impetus for testifying was a friend who needs the pill for ovarian cysts. Should she have to pay out of pocket for that? No, and that's where the government comes in.
And aren't there different kinds of pills that women take that may not cost 9 dollars at Walgreens? I'm not sure that's why I am asking.
Again, folks, step back and think about this a little bit rather than taking the right wing talking points as gospel. If an employer can refuse to cover birth control for whatever reason, what's to stop them from objecting to covering vaccinations for religious reasons? Or some other form of care?
If an employer can refuse to cover birth control for whatever reason, what's to stop them from objecting to covering vaccinations for religious reasons?
Maybe it shouldn't be up to the employer, the insurance company or the govt - didcha ever think about that? If YOU pay for it, who can stop you?
It's a nice idea but I'm not sure how it would work in reality. I have to admit that it would be easier on some levels.
But how would you deal with the price issue. The reason why we have insurance is because medical procedures and drugs cost a lot. We manage the cost through a large pool insured who end up covering the person who needs it. That's why I laugh when people tell me that they don't want government health care because they don't want to pay for someone else. They already are!
As we have discussed many times before, the free market wouldn't really change that because of inelastic demand. I mean, juris, do you think all those doctors, providers, health care parts manufacturers, and drug companies are going to suddenly want to charge substantially less money?
It's a nice idea but I'm not sure how it would work in reality.
Really? People seem to manage this with food; is food somehow less necessary than most health care products?
We manage the cost through a large pool insured who end up covering the person who needs it.
Insurance is about risk, not cost. That is one of the root causes of our current problems. We don't have auto insurance to pay for gas or oil changes - we have it in case of a major loss (accident, theft or other destruction). But we expect health insurance to deliver us all of the goodies at little to no cost to us.
As I have stated previously, your comparison of food is off because of its elasticity, not to mention the fact that there are a wide variety of substitutes available for food. If peanut butter goes up in price, people stop buying it. If oranges go up, people buy bananas. Food is generally very competitive with many buyers and sellers...imagine a farmer's market. This is not the case with health care. There are indeed many buyers but not as many sellers. There is no "farmer's market," right?
If the cost of appendectomies go up, people still get them regardless of price. If you have a high deductable, you are still paying out of pocket for some of these procedures so there really isn't any insurance distortion.
I also think your comparison to cars is off because with them it makes sense that oil changes aren't covered. But shouldn't "oil changes" for people be covered? After all, regular wellness checks and preventative care save money in the long run. The problems arise when people wait and then more care is needed and thus, the bill is higher.
This is not the case with health care
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it so.
Consider the choice on most prescription meds: brand or generic. If my co-pay is the same for either, what incentive exists for me to choose generic? All it takes is the slightest perception that brand is better and adios generic.
If potentially I will have to pay more out of pocket due to lifestyle and/or medication choices, I have an incentive to either change or save up for those inevitable costs. In both cases, I have cost signals to use - whereas when someone else will pay no matter what, why should I care (financially speaking)?
That is why the food example is relevant. If steak cost you the same as hamburger which are you going to buy? You don't care that the cost difference is being born by other people through "food insurance".
But shouldn't "oil changes" for people be covered?
No because I can choose to run my car without changing the oil - it will just cause a major problem down the line. There were many years I didn't do an annual check-up, why budget for them when I don't use them? When I do need to see a doctor, I should pay for that. Depending on age, I may need to see one every year, twice a year or once every five years. That should be my decision, my cost and not because someone else says so.
Even the original post alludes to this - payment for contraception. But really we are talking birth control pills, not condoms. Do you see how intrusive this ends up?
A great take-down on how everyone is so happy to roll in the mud rather than have a grown-up discussion.
The deafness of tone simply amazes me. That and the complete ignorance about women's health issues. The folks at Reason ironically show none of it. Many women who take the pill do so purely for health reasons, not birth control. So men paying half or using condoms won't help someone who has extremely bloody periods or ovarian cysts. This is why the pill should be covered (just like any other drug or care) as a HEALTH issue and not a SEX issue. And, once again, we have a man dispensing advice on women's health issues...many you guys are fucking brain dead.
If my co-pay is the same for either, what incentive exists for me to choose generic?
Isn't it true that insurers pay more for generic drugs than the name brand?
I have an incentive to either change or save up for those inevitable costs.
Save? Good grief...
With health care costs continually rising (regardless of demand), most individuals won't even come close to being able to save the amount of money it would take for possible problems.
The bottom line, juris, is that health care costs too much damn money. Because of the complexities of the various health care markets, letting the free market work itself out isn't an option. We've been over this before and it's very frustrating that you won't accept basic facts about how all of this would play out if you had your way.
Whether we pay the government, an insurance company, or a provider, we will all end up paying for someone else in the end. With health care, no one is an island.
Many women who take the pill do so purely for health reasons, not birth control.
I believe they mentioned that. That of course is still a minority. But so what. No one has come up with real life $1000/yr birth control drugs. Even if they did - you keep insisting that someone else is responsible for paying for that. You just can't stand the thought of adult independence, can you?
Isn't it true that insurers pay more for generic drugs than the name brand?
I don't know - why don't you provide some evidence of that? As far as I know mine doesn't. [Note to observers, since neither of us actually know, M will now claim this as a fact that he has proved.]
Save? Good grief...
I know, everyone should just live on credit for today and say "what the fuck" about tomorrow, right? How could you ever possibly afford foreseeable expenses in your future and use insurance against the unlikely ones. No you motherfucker want what you want and goddamit somebody else just better pay for it because you can vote to make them pay.
we will all end up paying for someone else in the end.
Right, someone else pays - that is your answer. You fucking child. Run to momma. God forbid that you actually stand up and take your own place in the world. Just suck down the blue pill bitch.
You apparently don't know much about women's issues, either, Mark. If you actually need hormone pills for treatment of a medical condition, and birth control pills aren't covered by your insurance plan, you just get a Letter of Medical Necessity from your doctor and they should be covered in any plan my wife has heard of. Yes, she has personal experience with this, and that's why I know about it.
In any case, the generics at Walmart, Target, CVS are all less out of pocket than all but the most generous copays. Why should BC be free? Why should only BC be free? Free drugs for all! A new call to action for the Occutards!
They should be covered (or not covered depending on the plan) just like any other medication. My point is that just because it has to do with sex doesn't mean that it's "bad."
Then what was the crapola about "us not understanding women's health issues" and specifically bringing up purely medical uses of the pill? Please point out where any of us or the people at Reason said anything about sex being "bad"? You're hearing voices again, Mark. You really ought to get that checked out.
Hell if M didn't listen to the voices in his head he might die of loneliness.
Post a Comment