# I had NO idea it was like this...



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439355/caught-on-tape-limbaughs-70-sexist-smears/?tw_p=twt

I had NO idea that it was like this! None.
I thought he had just mentioned it once or something.
But ..just wow.
I understand more fully what all the stink is about..

Warning... seriously offensive content, but it passed FCC rules and by-laws...

(and does he think that women have to take a pill each time they are intimate?..like he has to with Viagra..???)


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

I've never understood how anybody, let alone one of two major political parties in this country, would refer to that disgusting piece of pink slime their "spokesperson".
I understand he's never had any children. He seems to have benefited quite nicely from birth control.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

chickenista said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439355/caught-on-tape-limbaughs-70-sexist-smears/?tw_p=twt
> 
> I had NO idea that it was like this! None.
> I thought he had just mentioned it once or something.
> ...


What about Bill Maher or Geraffelo? Maher is much, MUCH, more of a womanizer than Rush could ever be, yet he get's a pass on everything. :shrug:


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

GrammasCabin said:


> I've never understood how anybody, let alone one of two major political parties in this country, would refer to that disgusting piece of pink slime their "spokesperson".
> I understand he's never had any children.  He seems to have benefited quite nicely from birth control.


He practices what he preaches. And also he pays for it with his own money.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Old Vet said:


> And also he pays for it with his own money.


That's the key right there.
Nobody really cares what the leftists are doing, but why should we have to pay for their sex lives?


----------



## snowcap (Jul 1, 2011)

GrammasCabin said:


> I've never understood how anybody, let alone one of two major political parties in this country, would refer to that disgusting piece of pink slime their "spokesperson".
> I understand he's never had any children.* He seems to have benefited quite nicely from birth control*.


the difference is he payed for it himself.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Sorry, I agree with Rush.

So many people are all about "empowering women" and "giving women _control _over their fertility."

Well, if someone else is paying for the birth control, how exactly does that woman have control?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

chickenista said:


> I had NO idea that it was like this!


Dont worry... it wasnt "like that". If you will notice the tape was tweeked quite a bit with huge amounts of his comments edited out to make it appear much worse than it was. I know.... that hard to imagine but his opposition will do what they can.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

I have a totally different take on this. I put people like Limbaugh and Maher in the same category as Howard Stern. This isn't "news", it's "entertainment". They get paid for bringing ratings to their stations. The more outrageous they are, the more they make.

Why the public cares, or takes serious anything said by any entertainer is beyond me.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

chickenista said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439355/caught-on-tape-limbaughs-70-sexist-smears/?tw_p=twt
> 
> I had NO idea that it was like this! None.
> I thought he had just mentioned it once or something.
> ...


You do know the FCC rules are not the HT rules? I hope this is not as offensive in language as you seem to indicate.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

With all those here who are defending Rush, it would be pretty amusing if his words were too unsavory to be deemed allowable on HT.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Spokesman? where did that come from? Rush is a commentator and entertainer but not a spokesman for me or any other Republican or conservative I know. I know that the liberal/ democrats follow the tune their leaders play for them and memorize the soundbites that their leaders media representatives instruct them with. It's sad to think that they believe other parties are the same.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Home Harvest said:


> I have a totally different take on this. I put people like Limbaugh and Maher in the same category as Howard Stern. This isn't "news", it's "entertainment". They get paid for bringing ratings to their stations. The more outrageous they are, the more they make.
> 
> Why the public cares, or takes serious anything said by any entertainer is beyond me.


American people are no longer able, to distinguish where that line is, between "news" and entertainment.

Our own ignroance, is the problem here.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

Everyone knows that the woman he insulted was not asking tax payers to pay for anything, don't they? She was giving examples of other students (including married students) finding that the insurance they pay for as part of their tuition did not cover contraception and how that impacted them.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mistletoad said:


> Everyone knows that the woman he insulted was not asking tax payers to pay for anything, don't they? She was giving examples of other students (including married students) finding that the insurance they pay for as part of their tuition did not cover contraception and how that impacted them.


Right.
And the point of that information was to push the Government to "fix" that problem. How does Congress fix it? By including it in Obamacare. Then who's paying for her pills (or the birth control pills of her friend)? Taxpaayers.

If you think I'm wrong, please explain the reason she gave that speach before Congress?

Did Obama call Sarah Palin when she was insulted? Why not? Did you deplore the hatefull remarks of James Hoffa against the Tea Party, when he was talking to Obama? Kinda one sided are we?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The woman had "no choice but to go without contraception?" Apparently, the women Fluke talked about needed to Google "free birth control pills" and step away from the keyboard. Then she needed to call Planned Parenthood if you wasn't satisfied with her choices. If you didn't like the color and shapes of the free ones, many states offer birth control pills at $9/month. Surely some liberal in Hollywood can pony up $9 a month to keep the First Amendment in place. Or Fluke. Fluke met this woman. Couldn't Fluke and the activist next to her forgo a latte this month? Don't try and tell me that the woman Fluke talked about had "no choice" and we have to abandon the First Amendment rights of religiously-affiliated employers based on this little anecdote.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

haypoint said:


> If you didn't like the color and shapes of the free ones, many states offer birth control pills at $9/month.


Wouldn't these options be at tax payer expense?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GrammasCabin said:


> I've never understood how anybody, let alone one of two major political parties in this country, would refer to that disgusting piece of pink slime their "spokesperson".
> I understand he's never had any children. He seems to have benefited quite nicely from birth control.


Has the Republican party ( or anyone else) ever called him that, or is that just what the Leftys call him?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> With all those here who are defending Rush, it would be pretty amusing if his words were too unsavory to be deemed allowable on HT.


No one "defending" him (although I haven't seen that) has posted his words here.
In fact, it's only the ones attacking him, or those who like to :stirpot: that keep bringing him up at all.

No one else seems to really care about it one way or the other


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

You'd think most of us here would be happy to pay for liberals' birth control. The less of them the better.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Callieslamb said:


> You'd think most of us here would be happy to pay for liberals' birth control. The less of them the better.


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Matt


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Callieslamb said:


> You'd think most of us here would be happy to pay for liberals' birth control. The less of them the better.


I'm sorry, but that made me laugh, ----- really hard!!! ound:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You'd think most of us here would be happy to pay for liberals' birth control. The less of them the better


.

If you'll run for President, I will vote for you


----------



## brosil (Dec 15, 2003)

A point. She didn't testify before Congress. It was a staged event by Pelosi.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Home Harvest said:


> I have a totally different take on this. I put people like Limbaugh and Maher in the same category as Howard Stern. This isn't "news", it's "entertainment". They get paid for bringing ratings to their stations. The more outrageous they are, the more they make.
> 
> Why the public cares, or takes serious anything said by any entertainer is beyond me.


Exactly This!


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

JJ Grandits said:


> Spokesman? where did that come from? Rush is a commentator and entertainer but not a spokesman for me or any other Republican or conservative I know. I know that the liberal/ democrats follow the tune their leaders play for them and memorize the soundbites that their leaders media representatives instruct them with. It's sad to think that they believe other parties are the same.


Rush may not be your bandleader but a lot of Republicans do march along with the beat that he sets.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Callieslamb said:


> You'd think most of us here would be happy to pay for liberals' birth control. The less of them the better.


***************************************************
I'm sure that Tricky will be along shortly, to 2nd that.......:thumb:


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

I agree with everything Rush Limbaugh said. Nothing 'sexist' about it, he is criticizing someone who wants taxpayer money for having sex. IDK why the tape rings another sexist smear every time he says the word 'sex'. Is that word sexist? Stupid article.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Rush may not be your bandleader but a lot of Republicans do march along with the beat that he sets.


That's a false impression.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I have not listened to what he said, and have no intention of listening. I've never heard his broadcast and don't plan on starting now. I don't know why so many on the left think that those on the right can't think for themselves but depend on a talk show host to tell them what to think. I also don't listen to Hannity, although I enjoy listening to Glen Beck, but I also listen to Ed Shultz and Jon Stewart.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

Darntootin said:


> I agree with everything Rush Limbaugh said. Nothing 'sexist' about it, he is criticizing someone who wants taxpayer money for having sex.


No, he isn't. She pays for her health insurance.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chickenista said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439355/caught-on-tape-limbaughs-70-sexist-smears/?tw_p=twt
> 
> I had NO idea that it was like this! None.
> I thought he had just mentioned it once or something.
> ...


I didn't listen to the link but I heard the original broadcast and I was nearly rolling on the floor laughing. What Rush does is take things to the extreme to show how STUPID the original thought was. For example people want the government to set a "living wage" so he ask what's that? If you want the government to set a wage where do you set it $10/hr? If 10 is good why not 20? If 20 is good why not 100? That shows how stupid it is to just make up a wage and force businesses to pay it.

His point is why should you be force to pay for her BC? I would have gone another way. I would have asked if we are forced to pay for women's BC should we be forced to pay for their breast enhancements?

The over all point is the fact you have people out there who want others to pay for them and their stuff. And when they don't get it they whine and cry like 4 y.o. kids.

Also what do you call an unmarried woman who "sleeps around"?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> You do know the FCC rules are not the HT rules? I hope this is not as offensive in language as you seem to indicate.


Its not, unless the clip has been edited/voiced over. The worse thing Rush says is calling her a sl*t. I don't think that's over the line for here. But I edited it anyway.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mistletoad said:


> Everyone knows that the woman he insulted was not asking tax payers to pay for anything, don't they? She was giving examples of other students (including married students) finding that the insurance they pay for as part of their tuition did not cover contraception and how that impacted them.


Having the government to use the force of law to take money from one person or group to pay for something for another person or group is the same thing as the government paying for it. 

Its like the government forcing phone companies to charge you a "fee" on your bill. Its called a fee but its still a tax.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> Rush may not be your bandleader but a lot of Republicans do march along with the beat that he sets.


Yeah, they sure do. He's the reason McCain was the repub running for President last time. *NOT!*

If you listen to him he is often at odds with the repubs in office.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> I didn't listen to the link but I heard the original broadcast and I was nearly rolling on the floor laughing. What Rush does is take things to the extreme to show how STUPID the original thought was. For example people want the government to set a "living wage" so he ask what's that? If you want the government to set a wage where do you set it $10/hr? If 10 is good why not 20? If 20 is good why not 100? That shows how stupid it is to just make up a wage and force businesses to pay it.


Thats not logical. Logical is setting the minimum wage for a local area based on what it costs a single individual to live in that area. What is the going rate for rent on cheapest housing available. What is going rate for minimal food. What is going rate for transportation, public transportation if available, but minimalist automobile if not and that includes state mandated insurance and cost of maintaining it. So on. The idea of minimum wage isnt to make low end class of idle rich, its to allow somebody to actually honestly earn a living in the community. Paying them 50 cents a day and expecting them to live under a bridge and eat out of dumpsters isnt reasonable though it would seem to be what Rush wants. Buisness in cut throat capitalist way only pays bare minimum it has to pay doesnt it??? Well doesnt it?? Without a minimum wage, they will look for most desperate warm bodies possible and pay them the least they can in order to maximize profit. Otherwise they would be cheating their shareholders wouldnt they?? But its in govt interest to have a stable society without a permanent underclass living in shanties and under bridges.



watcher said:


> His point is why should you be force to pay for her BC? I would have gone another way. I would have asked if we are forced to pay for women's BC should we be forced to pay for their breast enhancements?
> 
> The over all point is the fact you have people out there who want others to pay for them and their stuff. And when they don't get it they whine and cry like 4 y.o. kids.


I think the person complaining is wanting contraception included in the PRIVATE health care being offered through employment, not talking welfare crowd. Its not the insurance company complaining, its cheaper for them to provide contraception than birth/baby care. Its the employer on some theoretical moral high horse. Well nobody is forcing the employer to use contraception so whats the problem?

And breast enhancement is elective cosmetic surgery. Contraception is health care. Would you rather health insurance pay for bunch of unwanted babies many with very expensive health care expenses? Really? Its cheaper to pay for contraception for those not wanting babies than to pay people to have babies and health care for those babies.



watcher said:


> IAlso what do you call an unmarried woman who "sleeps around"?


Same thing you call an unmarried or married man that "sleeps around"!!!! Or maybe the same thing you call a blowhard drug addict talk show host??? Or are you denying he sinned against his proclaimed religion? I think its a matter of public record that he did. So lets put a big red A on each of their foreheads and chain them in stocks in front of the local courthouse for a week to let everybody spit on them and laugh????


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Where was all the hoopla when Bill Maher was calling Sarah Palin those terrible names?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think the person complaining is *wanting contraception included* in the PRIVATE health care being offered through employment, *not talking welfare crowd*.


They still want something for nothing.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Abstinence is the cheapest form of birth control ever invented. If you can't afford to care for a child, or treat an STD then maybe, just maybe you should forgo the luxury of having sex. 

I don't think the government should be dictating what type of private insurance is offered. That should be between the company offering it and those buying into it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I wonder if Rush expects his insurance company to pay for his Viagra and prescription pain pills? I'll bet he does. Funny how that works, eh?



> I think the person complaining is wanting contraception included in the PRIVATE health care being offered through employment, not talking welfare crowd. Its not the insurance company complaining, its cheaper for them to provide contraception than birth/baby care. Its the employer on some theoretical moral high horse.


I think the religious exemption should apply only to institutions engaged in genuine religious activities, i.e., worship and religious instruction. Where churches branch out into secular activities, and especially when they hire or serve people outside their faith, they should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. 

At the same time, being a pragmatist, I realize we have long-established religious colleges and hospitals that provide a vital service to their communities, services that would be missed if these institutions were to close their doors over a matter of conscience. So the solution is not as clear-cut as it would seem.

At the end of the day, I think Sandra Fluke's mistake was choosing a religious school when she obviously does not share the tenets of the faith. When you get mixed up with Christians, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don't like the outcome.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Thats not logical. Logical is setting the minimum wage for a local area based on what it costs a single individual to live in that area. What is the going rate for rent on cheapest housing available. What is going rate for minimal food. What is going rate for transportation, public transportation if available, but minimalist automobile if not and that includes state mandated insurance and cost of maintaining it. So on. The idea of minimum wage isnt to make low end class of idle rich, its to allow somebody to actually honestly earn a living in the community. Paying them 50 cents a day and expecting them to live under a bridge and eat out of dumpsters isnt reasonable though it would seem to be what Rush wants. Buisness in cut throat capitalist way only pays bare minimum it has to pay doesnt it??? Well doesnt it?? Without a minimum wage, they will look for most desperate warm bodies possible and pay them the least they can in order to maximize profit. Otherwise they would be cheating their shareholders wouldnt they?? But its in govt interest to have a stable society without a permanent underclass living in shanties and under bridges.


Hockey pucks!! The idea of the minimum wage is to get votes for dems. It is a bone for the unions because most union wages are linked to the minimum. It also allows the dems to say they are "helping" the little guy. That's a crock of stuff. All it does is drive prices up. 


I've told this story several times and I'll tell it again here:

Long ago when the feds raised the minimum wage I was working at a fast food restaurant. The NIGHT before the new wage went into effect the manager came in and we spent an hour or so working on the computer to raise the prices of EVERY item on the menu. This means the workers at the restaurant got a raise but anyone who bought the food had been handed a pay cut.




HermitJohn said:


> I think the person complaining is wanting contraception included in the PRIVATE health care being offered through employment, not talking welfare crowd.


Ah. . .there's the rub. If its PRIVATE health care should not the PRIVATE provider who is using PRIVATE fund to pay for it have the right to decided what it wants to pay for? Think about it. You want a new car and all you want is a cheap, simple 'get me to work' car. But when you get to the dealer you are told you are REQUIRED to buy a car with electric windows; a 12 speaker AM/FM/CD/XM/iPod ready radio; electric, heated leather seats; a sun roof and a turbo charged 12 cyl engine. When you complain about it you are told to just shut up after all its a PRIVATE company selling you the car not the government. 




HermitJohn said:


> Its not the insurance company complaining, its cheaper for them to provide contraception than birth/baby care. Its the employer on some theoretical moral high horse. Well nobody is forcing the employer to use contraception so whats the problem?


So you have no problem with the government telling you what you may buy? You have no problem with the government telling a company what it must sell? 




HermitJohn said:


> And breast enhancement is elective cosmetic surgery. Contraception is health care.


Again, hockey pucks! Each is a non-necessary medical treatment.




HermitJohn said:


> Would you rather health insurance pay for bunch of unwanted babies many with very expensive health care expenses? Really? Its cheaper to pay for contraception for those not wanting babies than to pay people to have babies and health care for those babies.


I rather pay for myself and you pay for yourself. See I'm a believer in individual freedom and responsibility. Its really easy to not have kids if you don't want them, and it doesn't cost anyone a dime.




HermitJohn said:


> Same thing you call an unmarried or married man that "sleeps around"!!!!


Really? What's that?




HermitJohn said:


> Or maybe the same thing you call a blowhard drug addict talk show host??? Or are you denying he sinned against his proclaimed religion? I think its a matter of public record that he did. So lets put a big red A on each of their foreheads and chain them in stocks in front of the local courthouse for a week to let everybody spit on them and laugh????


I don't remember him going before congress and asking that the federal government force someone to supply him with his drugs. Or did I miss that?

I guess you like seeing people turned into slaves by the government. Shuffling up to their government 'massers' with their hands out begging; "Please, masser, please give me somes. I's cants get it mes self. I needs you to gives mes some food, a place to stays and I forsur needs you to give mes some of them birth control pills cause Is donts want no chillrns runnin' round. Yous gives mes all tht and I'lls forsur vote for yous."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I wonder if Rush expects his insurance company to pay for his Viagra and prescription pain pills? I'll bet he does. Funny how that works, eh?


If you listen to Rush you'd know he doesn't have ANY insurance. He pays for his health care out of his pocket.

But even if he did and it did is it not up to him if he wishes to buy a policy which does? Does he also have the right to choice one which does not?




willow_girl said:


> I think the religious exemption should apply only to institutions engaged in genuine religious activities, i.e., worship and religious instruction. Where churches branch out into secular activities, and especially when they hire or serve people outside their faith, they should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.


And the rules should be that you should be able to buy what you want and not have the government force you to do otherwise. If you want to buy prepaid health care that covers everything from BC to plastic surgery then you should have that option. If I want to buy medical insurance which will ONLY cover hospital stays I should be able to do that.

You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell me how I can spend my money.




willow_girl said:


> At the same time, being a pragmatist, I realize we have long-established religious colleges and hospitals that provide a vital service to their communities, services that would be missed if these institutions were to close their doors over a matter of conscience. So the solution is not as clear-cut as it would seem.


Quite clear cut. You allow people, groups and businesses to buy the insurance they want. If that insuracne is not acceptable to the people covered they have the right to buy more or find somewhere else to work.




willow_girl said:


> At the end of the day, I think Sandra Fluke's mistake was choosing a religious school when she obviously does not share the tenets of the faith. When you get mixed up with Christians, you have no one to blame but yourself if you don't like the outcome.


From what I have read; it was not a mistake. It was a deliberate act. She's an activist and wanted just what happened.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

watcher said:


> If you want to buy prepaid health care that covers everything from BC to plastic surgery then you should have that option. If I want to buy medical insurance which will ONLY cover hospital stays I should be able to do that.
> 
> You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell me how I can spend my money.


Thank you for making the point so well. Sandra Fluke pays for her insurance, but the university she attends is telling her what she can and cannot buy. As you say, it should not be their decision.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

22 years ago - AFTER my wife and I got married, being newlyweds we did not want children so early in our marriage - my wife got birth control pills. And unless things have changed - she took ONE pill a day.

I'm not quite sure Rush knows what he is talking about. It seems he thinks women have to take a birth control pill every time.

Now, with that being said, I don't approve of pre-marital "hanky panky" nor do I think taxpaers should pay for it. 

I don't think the insurance I had covered birth control pills - which we thought was odd - they will cover the costs of post pregnancy and on, but they wouldn't cover the cost to help someone avoid becoming pregnant. iT seems to me it would be alot cheaper to pay for birth control pills than to pay for the doctor's visits, delivery, and on going healthcare of the child.

As a sidenote, it's so funny Rush is so judgemental. He doesn't think it's right for college students to be messing around, but apparently it's okay when he was / is addicted to prescription drugs.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Thats not logical. Logical is setting the minimum wage for a local area based on what it costs a single individual to live in that area. What is the going rate for rent on cheapest housing available. What is going rate for minimal food. What is going rate for transportation, public transportation if available, but minimalist automobile if not and that includes state mandated insurance and cost of maintaining it. So on. The idea of minimum wage isnt to make low end class of idle rich, its to allow somebody to actually honestly earn a living in the community. Paying them 50 cents a day and expecting them to live under a bridge and eat out of dumpsters isnt reasonable though it would seem to be what Rush wants. Buisness in cut throat capitalist way only pays bare minimum it has to pay doesnt it??? Well doesnt it?? Without a minimum wage, they will look for most desperate warm bodies possible and pay them the least they can in order to maximize profit. Otherwise they would be cheating their shareholders wouldnt they?? But its in govt interest to have a stable society without a permanent underclass living in shanties and under bridges.


Sorry to hijack the thread, but the basis for the above quote is flawed, and is the cause of a lot of the division between conservatives and liberals. The problem with basing anything on cost of living is that it's a moving target. Not only that, but it is a feedback loop. The more people have to spend, the more things will cost.

I've managed a retail business for many years, and we agonize over our prices. We have to set our prices high enough to stay in business. We need to cover expenses (payroll, inventory, rent, taxes, electric, oil, phone, vehicle maintenance, etc.) but if we set prices too high people will either buy elsewhere, or not buy our products at all. We walk a fine line.

Don't you think landlords do the same? Do you believe that rent is the same in, say Newark, NJ, as it is in Princeton NJ. Or, do you think that rent near central park is the same as rent in the Bronx? Of course not. That's because of basic economic principals. Does a landlord make any money if nobody can afford his appartments?

There is no such animal as a "going rate" because the "going rate" is a function of what people can afford to pay. The more they make, the higher the cost of living and the higher the going rate will be. The more government does to correct the situation, the more out of balance it will become. 

You want a prime example, look at health insurance, and healthcare costs. It used to be that you could pay cash for a doctors visit. Now, thanks to health insurance that doctors visit will cost hunders of dollars. My wife called about a physical, and was quoted $400-500. For a physical! No treatment.

Raising minimum wage has many negative effects. Does a kid flipping burgers (to pay for his first car, and a movie on Friday night) need to make $10 per hour? Say you pay those kids $10 per hour, can the public justify $10 for a happy meal?

Say the minimum wage increase drives rent up 20%, what does the retired widow do? What does the self employed start-up business owner just out of college do? Minimum wage won't help these folks, in fact it could ruin them.

I've never understood minimum wage. If I don't pay my employees enough, they will take a job down the street that pays more. Eventually I only have employees that nobody else will hire. Not the type I'm looking for.

But, should the kid sweeping the floor make as much as the stock boy, the cashier, the office manager? Obviously not. How do they fit in the minimum wage scheme?

Again, sorry for the hijack.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> Rush may not be your bandleader but a lot of Republicans do march along with the beat that he sets.


And it seems that a lot of liberals march lockstep with Shulz, Olberman, Maddow. And they take their word as gospel!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Also what do you call an unmarried woman who "sleeps around"?


Popular


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I don't think many people are aware of the history of birth control in this country. Google "Comstock laws" and you may get a surprise! For instance, did you know that for many years, it was illegal for a physician to even discuss methods of contraception with his patients? 

It wasn't until 1972 that a Supreme Court ruling made it universally legal for an unmarried person to obtain contraceptives. 

Historically, men have been very uneasy with the idea of women having free access to contraception. It was argued that young women would have no incentive to remain virgins if they could easily prevent pregnancy. (And who wants to marry a girl who might be comparing you to a more well-endowed former lover?)

The argument also was made that with freely available contraceptives, a woman could deny her husband the marital privilege, meanwhile sneaking around and taking her own pleasure with the postman or milkman! If she could prevent any telltale pregnancies, who would be the wiser? 

These ideas may sound antiquated now, but I'm not so sure about that. I remember, when I got my first contraceptive device at age 16, my boyfriend was very eager to pay for it, but I insisted on footing the bill myself. He unhappily expressed the notion that if I bought my own IUD, I might feel free to use it with whomever I pleased ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It wasn't until *1972 *that a Supreme Court ruling made it universally legal for an unmarried person to obtain contraceptives.


Nice history lesson, but it has nothing to do with *today*


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mistletoad said:


> Thank you for making the point so well. Sandra Fluke pays for her insurance, but the university she attends is telling her what she can and cannot buy. As you say, it should not be their decision.


No. The university is OFFERING her insurance. If she doesn't like the offer she is not force to buy it. Also if she wishes she can buy supplemental insurance to cover whatever she wishes. She's free to buy any insurance she wishes, or even not buy any insurance at all.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

watcher said:


> No. The university is OFFERING her insurance. If she doesn't like the offer she is not force to buy it. Also if she wishes she can buy supplemental insurance to cover whatever she wishes. She's free to buy any insurance she wishes, or even not buy any insurance at all.


Uh, no. That isn't how it works. You might like for it to work that way, but it does not.



> Most students... are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University, unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And the rules should be that you should be able to buy what you want and not have the government force you to do otherwise.
> 
> You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell me how I can spend my money.


This would be reasonable if the system did not mandate that hospitals HAVE to provide you with lifesaving treatment, regardless of your ability to pay ... plus there's the fact that the government is the default provider of care to many of the poor and sick, via Medicare and Medicaid, and thus has a vested interest in keeping people healthy, AND making them self-sufficient (via their own insurance coverage) for as long as possible.

Take government out of the equation altogether, and I have no problem with what you propose. (But how many people d'ya think would go without insurance if they knew it meant they would be wheeled out on a gurney to die in the hospital parking lot?)

Currently, the government provides health care coverage to a quarter of the U.S. population, and that number is going to grow as the Baby Boomers continue aging. For a long time, it's done this without making serious attempts to contain costs. However, it's now borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Going down the path of continuing to pay the market rate for healthcare for many of the people unable or unwilling to buy their own insurance is going to bankrupt us if we don't get a handle on the situation.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I'm wayyyyy out of the loop on the cost of health insurance... everytime I look at some policy quotes, I pass out. 

Why would anyone want to get 'insurance' so they could get a 4$/month birth control prescription? Or, from what I have read, have insurance cover 'it' at all, as all planned parenthood and free clinics give the stuff out like candy?

The whole debacle is an Obama Admin attempt to deflect attention from his rotten to the core record on everything... Fuel is soaring, the Dollar is dropping, our Credit rating is going to go down again this year, War is going to happen in the ME... the economy is failing, people are out of work (on purpose, thank you Mr.arxist Obama... The "Left" would be railing, Cindy Sheehan would be beaming, continuously, right now, if there were a conservative in office.

oh.... getting your 'news' from thinkprogress will rot your brain... unless you know ahead of time that it's progressive 'talking points' entertainment...


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

yvonne's hubby said:


> popular


lmao!:d


----------



## Helena (May 10, 2002)

I did listen to his remarks. I usually "take the meat and leave the bones' on his show..but he has some good points on this though. This young women went to a catholic college and then expected the college to provide her with birth control..get a grip...this is her responsiblity. If you can afford to attend a private college you certainly can afford your own birth control...or just your own control..please. Call your local heath center and they will provide you with "some sort" of birth control. I don't understand why it is the states or gov. responsibilty to provide birth control. Yes..it does cost with a prescription but being a responisble independent young women you should provide for yourself. Now..I am a mother of 2 grown daughters and have a granddaughter also...I was young at one time myself... Care for yourself and don't expect others to take care of your needs. Also...I would be mortified if my daughter was on nation TV saying she was having sex and couldn't afford birth control. Where is the pride today....


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I don't understand why it is the states or gov. responsibilty to provide birth control.


For the record, as it seems many people are confused about this issue, she wasn't asking the state or government to pay for her birth control. She wanted it covered under her insurance plan. Apparently, even if the insurer had been eager to provide contraceptive coverage, the college would have vetoed it because of the Catholic objection to birth control.

Not being Christian, it makes no sense to me that a college would require students to buy its health insurance and then NOT ALLOW THE PLAN TO OFFER CONTRACEPTIVES! If there's anything college kids need in the way of healthcare, it's contraceptives. Geez! ound:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not being Christian, it makes no sense to me that a college would require students to buy its health insurance and


They don't require you buy theirs
They require you *to have* insurance that meets their minimum standards:



> Most students... are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University,* unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements. *


In the end, it was still all a GOVT publicity stunt orchestrated by Nancy Pelosi


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I wonder what those requirements are?

Surely the college wouldn't bar students from purchasing outside insurance that DID cover birth control, would it?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I don't know a lot about the cost of insurance but I would think it would cost more than $4 a month.
Couldn't she avoid all cost just by making sure each partner she wanted to have sex with furnish their own condom?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mistletoad said:


> Uh, no. That isn't how it works. You might like for it to work that way, but it does not.
> 
> Most students... are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University, unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements.


And just what about this prevents her from buying her own insurance or an additional plan to cover her BC?

I have a way to end the issue, the school just stops offering everyone insurance and let the individuals buy what they want.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> This would be reasonable if the system did not mandate that hospitals HAVE to provide you with lifesaving treatment, regardless of your ability to pay ... plus there's the fact that the government is the default provider of care to many of the poor and sick, via Medicare and Medicaid, and thus has a vested interest in keeping people healthy, AND making them self-sufficient (via their own insurance coverage) for as long as possible.


So because the government has screwed the system up so badly with their rules we turn to the government to fix it with more rules? Do you see a problem with that line of thinking?




willow_girl said:


> Take government out of the equation altogether, and I have no problem with what you propose. (But how many people d'ya think would go without insurance if they knew it meant they would be wheeled out on a gurney to die in the hospital parking lot?)


There you go. I'm all for it. Its not the government's job to protect you from your own stupidity.




willow_girl said:


> Currently, the government provides health care coverage to a quarter of the U.S. population, and that number is going to grow as the Baby Boomers continue aging. For a long time, it's done this without making serious attempts to contain costs. However, it's now borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Going down the path of continuing to pay the market rate for healthcare for many of the people unable or unwilling to buy their own insurance is going to bankrupt us if we don't get a handle on the situation.


So your solution is instead of having the government pay for it to have the government force the individual to pay for it? How is one different than the other?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

mistletoad said:


> Everyone knows that the woman he insulted was not asking tax payers to pay for anything, don't they? She was giving examples of other students (including married students) finding that the insurance they pay for as part of their tuition did not cover contraception and how that impacted them.


Didn't they know what their insurance covered when they got it? I don't know why they need tax dollars to pay for their BC or morning after pills. If they aren't happy with the insurance coverage, then get different insurance. Why is their sex life my responsibility or the responsibility of the government. They're always telling us to get out of their bedrooms and their wombs, so stop asking us to pay for what they do in their bedrooms.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> For the record, as it seems many people are confused about this issue, she wasn't asking the state or government to pay for her birth control. She wanted it covered under her insurance plan. Apparently, even if the insurer had been eager to provide contraceptive coverage, the college would have vetoed it because of the Catholic objection to birth control.
> 
> No she wanted the government to *FORCE* the school to pay for something it did not want to.
> 
> ...


The point isn't BC the point is FREEDOM. Either the school has the freedom to offer what it wishes or the government has the power to force it to what the government wishes. 

How would you like it if the government came into your business and told you had to print "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." on all the paperwork your business used; e.g. invoices, business cards, receipts? 

If the government has the power to force the school to pay for BC what can it force you to pay for?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So your solution is instead of having the government pay for it to have the government force the individual to pay for it? How is one different than the other?


As a taxpayer, I'd rather see people forced to provide for themselves, if they're able, rather than having the cost come out of my pocket.

Right now, people can have their cake and eat it, too -- they know if they are hurt in an accident or have a heart attack or something, they'll be taken care of. whether or not they can afford to pay for it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

mistletoad said:


> Thank you for making the point so well. Sandra Fluke pays for her insurance, but the university she attends is telling her what she can and cannot buy. As you say, it should not be their decision.


Then why doesn't she just get insurance from a company that covers her needs? It's not rocket science. :shrug:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Michael W. Smith said:


> 22 years ago - AFTER my wife and I got married, being newlyweds we did not want children so early in our marriage - my wife got birth control pills. And unless things have changed - she took ONE pill a day.
> 
> I'm not quite sure Rush knows what he is talking about. It seems he thinks women have to take a birth control pill every time.
> 
> ...


No one is stopping them from finding an insurance company that will cover birth control pills. I really don't see how this is a situation that should have taken up the congress' time. It was such a waste of time considering all the things going on right now such as unemployment and the deficit.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

mistletoad said:


> Uh, no. That isn't how it works. You might like for it to work that way, but it does not.


I don't understand how you can say that isn't how it works. They don't have to get the college insurance do they? Even if they did, they are free to purchase insurance from another company that offers what they want. That's how the free market works. If you don't like what you are getting, then go somewhere else to find what you want. As far as I know, their choice of college was also their own decision, no one forced them to go to a Catholic college and no one is preventing them from purchasing their own insurance. This is still a free country, well, semi-free, no one is forcing them to attend college, attend that particular college and buy only that insurance. If they don't like it they can get their own insurance or find another school who has insurance that covers what they want. That's like a girl joining the boy scout and complaining because it's not geared towards girls. :shrug:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> This would be reasonable if the system did not mandate that hospitals HAVE to provide you with lifesaving treatment, regardless of your ability to pay ... plus there's the fact that the government is the default provider of care to many of the poor and sick, via Medicare and Medicaid, and thus has a vested interest in keeping people healthy, AND making them self-sufficient (via their own insurance coverage) for as long as possible.
> 
> Take government out of the equation altogether, and I have no problem with what you propose. (But how many people d'ya think would go without insurance if they knew it meant they would be wheeled out on a gurney to die in the hospital parking lot?)
> 
> Currently, the government provides health care coverage to a quarter of the U.S. population, and that number is going to grow as the Baby Boomers continue aging. For a long time, it's done this without making serious attempts to contain costs. However, it's now borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Going down the path of continuing to pay the market rate for healthcare for many of the people unable or unwilling to buy their own insurance is going to bankrupt us if we don't get a handle on the situation.


There's a huge difference between providing life saving care and birth control pills.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

texican said:


> I'm wayyyyy out of the loop on the cost of health insurance... everytime I look at some policy quotes, I pass out.
> 
> Why would anyone want to get 'insurance' so they could get a 4$/month birth control prescription? Or, from what I have read, have insurance cover 'it' at all, as all planned parenthood and free clinics give the stuff out like candy?
> 
> ...


That's exactly what's going on. They have chosen a ridiculous argument to stop people from talking about the real issues this country is facing and it looks like the sheeple have fallen right in line with it. Who cares what Rush said? None of the left concerned themselves over it when things were said about Palin or Bachman. This is smoke and mirrors. The right hates women, look at what they're doing. Don't worry about 5 dollar a gallon gas, look what the right is doing now. Don't worry about the deficit, the right is launching an attack on women.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> For the record, as it seems many people are confused about this issue, she wasn't asking the state or government to pay for her birth control. She wanted it covered under her insurance plan. Apparently, even if the insurer had been eager to provide contraceptive coverage, the college would have vetoed it because of the Catholic objection to birth control.
> 
> Not being Christian, it makes no sense to me that a college would require students to buy its health insurance and then NOT ALLOW THE PLAN TO OFFER CONTRACEPTIVES! If there's anything college kids need in the way of healthcare, it's contraceptives. Geez! ound:


Didn't she realize it was a Catholic school? :shrug: If she doesn't agree with the Catholic's teachings, why attend their college?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> I don't know a lot about the cost of insurance but I would think it would cost more than $4 a month.
> Couldn't she avoid all cost just by making sure each partner she wanted to have sex with furnish their own condom?


Or keep the insurance she has and pay her own cost for the birth control.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> I don't know why they need tax dollars to pay for their BC or morning after pills.


Who is this "they"? Sandra Fluke didn't ask taxpayers to pay for anything.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

snowcap said:


> the difference is he payed for it himself.


I doubt he *paid* for it at all; the women he was with paid for it. Incidentally, people do pay for health insurance. But even if we're talking about free birth control, paid for by the government, wouldn't you folks rather have women getting free birth control than abortions or having a LOT of kids and living on welfare? If I were opposed to abortion *and* welfare, I would want every woman on welfare or who doesn't want or couldn't care for a baby, to be on birth control. 

I would even go so far as to say that I might support mandated birth control for women who receive cash assistance. If people cannot support themselves, adding a baby to the mix isn't going to help matters.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> I doubt he *paid* for it at all; the women he was with paid for it. Incidentally, people do pay for health insurance. But even if we're talking about free birth control, paid for by the government, wouldn't you folks rather have women getting free birth control than abortions or having a LOT of kids and living on welfare? If I were opposed to abortion *and* welfare, I would want every woman on welfare or who doesn't want or couldn't care for a baby, to be on birth control.
> 
> I would even go so far as to say that I might support mandated birth control for women who receive cash assistance. If people cannot support themselves, adding a baby to the mix isn't going to help matters.


Awesome post.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> With all those here who are defending Rush, it would be pretty amusing *if his words were too unsavory to be deemed allowable on HT*.


That wouldn't take much.

Rush is an entertainer. He is big on hyperbole. Taking him literally, and seriously, can get you in big trouble.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

mistletoad said:


> Who is this "they"? Sandra Fluke didn't ask taxpayers to pay for anything.


The "they" that she referred to when she was before congress. She didn't say she wanted taxpayers to pay for it, just that she wanted her catholic school's insurance to pay for it. Its a ridiculous waste of time for our congress to be involved in this mess. If the female students at a catholic university want birth control coverage then they need to find insurance to cover it instead of trying to force the catholic church to go against it's teachings by covering birth control.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> I doubt he *paid* for it at all; the women he was with paid for it. Incidentally, people do pay for health insurance. But even if we're talking about free birth control, paid for by the government, wouldn't you folks rather have women getting free birth control than abortions or having a LOT of kids and living on welfare? If I were opposed to abortion *and* welfare, I would want every woman on welfare or who doesn't want or couldn't care for a baby, to be on birth control.
> 
> I would even go so far as to say that I might support mandated birth control for women who receive cash assistance. If people cannot support themselves, adding a baby to the mix isn't going to help matters.


It wouldn't be free birth control. Nothing in life is free. It would be birthcontrol paid for by others. I'd rather the government stay out of it altogether. Don't pay for birth control, don't pay for abortions, don't pay for them having lots of kids. They tell us to stay out of their bedrooms, yet they expect others to pay for what they do in those bedrooms. They need to pay for it themselves. Take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I'd like to see where anyone on welfare gets a $50,000 check from Uncle Sam if they voluntarily get surgically sterilized. That would be far less expensive than anything talked about so far.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> I'd like to see where anyone on welfare gets a $50,000 check from Uncle Sam if they voluntarily get surgically sterilized. That would be far less expensive than anything talked about so far.


If the government stopped giving everything to some and expecting others to pay for it the problem would be solved. They have no right to take tax payer money to pay for someone else's bc, abortion or sterilization.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mistletoad said:


> Who is this "they"? Sandra Fluke didn't ask taxpayers to pay for anything.


Thats quite true.... she didnt ask the taxpayers to pay for anything. She simply wants someone.... taxpayer or school or the man in the moon... to pay for her birth control. As long as SHE doesnt have to cough up a dime for it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mistletoad said:


> Who is this "they"? Sandra Fluke didn't ask taxpayers to pay for anything.


She wants the government to *force* the insurance company to pay for it. What's the difference in that and a tax?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> I doubt he *paid* for it at all; the women he was with paid for it. Incidentally, people do pay for health insurance. But even if we're talking about free birth control, paid for by the government, wouldn't you folks rather have women getting free birth control than abortions or having a LOT of kids and living on welfare? If I were opposed to abortion *and* welfare, I would want every woman on welfare or who doesn't want or couldn't care for a baby, to be on birth control.


Maybe we should give away free crack and meth. After all would you rather give it away or have the users stealing stuff to buy it?

I'll say it again.

*Its NOT the government's job to take care of you or anyone else.*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The "they" that she referred to when *she was before congress.*


She never testified "before Congress"

She wanted to, and they told her she was NOT QUALIFIED, so *Nancy Pelosi* set up a press conference and made it LOOK like she was "before Congress"

It was all staged from the very beginning


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mistletoad said:


> Who is this "they"? Sandra Fluke didn't ask taxpayers to pay for anything.


She is demanding the government force the school pay for it. How would you like it if the government forced you to buy GM food?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> I doubt he *paid* for it at all; the women he was with paid for it. Incidentally, people do pay for health insurance. But even if we're talking about free birth control, paid for by the government, wouldn't you folks rather have women getting free birth control than abortions or having a LOT of kids and living on welfare? If I were opposed to abortion *and* welfare, I would want every woman on welfare or who doesn't want or couldn't care for a baby, to be on birth control.
> 
> I would even go so far as to say that I might support mandated birth control for women who receive cash assistance. If people cannot support themselves, adding a baby to the mix isn't going to help matters.


If you feel that way then you are free to go out and spend YOUR money to provide BC for them. But on the other hand you have no right to have the government force someone to do so.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

If a health insurance provider wants to use their religion as a method of determining what sort of medical procedures or medicines, exams, etc are covered.....maybe they are in the wrong business. Maybe they should be providing church services or religious counseling or generating religious literature instead of trying to enforce their religious beliefs via healthcare, on people who do not necessarily share all or any of those beliefs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

chamoisee said:


> If a health insurance provider wants to use their religion as a method of determining what sort of medical procedures or medicines, exams, etc are covered.....maybe they are in the wrong business.


Hmmm or maybe they should be "FREE" to write whatever coverage they choose to.... for those who want it. Is there some reason that men would need coverage to cover pregnancy related expenses? Why should they be forced to buy an insurance policy that covers those expenses?


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hmmm or maybe they should be "FREE" to write whatever coverage they choose to.... for those who want it. Is there some reason that men would need coverage to cover pregnancy related expenses? Why should they be forced to buy an insurance policy that covers those expenses?



I disagree.

Generally, I am all for religious freedom, however if you are an employer, you should not be allowed to cry first amendment rights, and then force your views onto your employees.

On the other hand, I think BC should be just like any other drug - covered if medically necessary, and not covered if not, though I get the feeling that if this were the case, the doc will always find a medically necessary reason to prescribe...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Beowulf said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Generally, I am all for religious freedom, however if you are an employer, you should not be allowed to cry first amendment rights, and then force your views onto your employees.
> 
> On the other hand, I think BC should be just like any other drug - covered if medically necessary, and not covered if not, though I get the feeling that if this were the case, the doc will always find a medically necessary reason to prescribe...


I dont think anyone was forcing their views on anyone in this case. (other than the government forcing its way into areas it doesnt belong) It seems to me that if an employer wants to furnish you with insurance coverage for asthma attacks but not cover your broken leg.... so be it... you can either accept whats offered or if you want better coverage... go see an insurance salesman and purchase the coverage that suits your needs. In this particular case it would appear to me that our good Sandra was not being forced to accept a durn thing, her stance was that the church should be forced (by the federal gov) to provide her with insurance that is contradictory with the churches beliefs. She is not an employee at the school, but rather a student attending the school. Where is it carved in stone that any school, public or private, must provide contraception for their students?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> If a health insurance provider wants to use their religion as a method of determining what sort of medical procedures or medicines, exams, etc are covered.....maybe they are in the wrong business. Maybe they should be providing church services or religious counseling or generating religious literature instead of trying to enforce their religious beliefs via healthcare, on people who do not necessarily share all or any of those beliefs.


Why should the insurance provider have to change? People can go to an insurance company that covers what they want. They don't have to go to one that is covering a catholic school.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> There's a huge difference between providing life saving care and birth control pills.


In some cases, birth control pills *are* life saving.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> Why should the insurance provider have to change? People can go to an insurance company that covers what they want. They don't have to go to one that is covering a catholic school.


They are in the wrong business. It's sort of like a judge making a court order for a defendant to attend a mosque, because the judge is Islamic. 

Religion and medicine are not compatible.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

chamoisee said:


> They are in the wrong business. It's sort of like a judge making a court order for a defendant to attend a mosque, because the judge is Islamic.
> 
> Religion and medicine are not compatible.


In this case the plaintiff (Sandra) is asking the judge (congress) to order the defendant (the insurance company) to sell their customer (the school) a product that they dont want or need. Religion is seldom compatible with anything but it is pretty much irrelevant in this situation. NO insurance company should be required to provide insurance policies to a customer that the customer doesnt want. Do you expect your homeowners insurance to cover your medical expenses? What about your auto insurance policy? Maybe it should provide contraception coverage... after all, an "accident" could happen in the backseat.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

chamoisee said:


> In some cases, birth control pills *are* life saving.


Yep, and those cases are pretty rare according to Sandra. She gave them honorable mention in her spiel, but went right back to the issue that contraceptives were just too expensive for the average student to pay for on their own. She is promoting more government intrusion into the situation in order to get someone, anyone else, to buy her BC for her.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and those cases are pretty rare according to Sandra. She gave them honorable mention in her spiel, but went right back to the issue that contraceptives were just too expensive for the average student to pay for on their own. She is promoting more government intrusion into the situation in order to get someone, anyone else, to buy her BC for her.


Guess she should do what other people do when something is out of their price range, do without or go to work.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pancho said:


> Guess she should do what other people do when something is out of their price range, do without or go to work.


Whaaaaat! do without!!!! I dont think so! this is America, the land of the free.... bies.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> In some cases, birth control pills *are* life saving.


I'm not sure in what cases it would be lifesaving and don't know the policies regarding it if it was lifesaving, but this was not the context of the subject.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> They are in the wrong business. It's sort of like a judge making a court order for a defendant to attend a mosque, because the judge is Islamic.
> 
> Religion and medicine are not compatible.


Nothing alike. The insurance company is covering a Catholic church and the women knew that. They have options of going elsewhere. Whereas if you have to go to court you have no choice of who the judge is.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> If a health insurance provider wants to use their religion as a method of determining what sort of medical procedures or medicines, exams, etc are covered.....maybe they are in the wrong business.


Why? Are you saying a business owner loses his right to follow his religion? Do you think the government should have the power to FORCE you to do something which is against your religion?




chamoisee said:


> Maybe they should be providing church services or religious counseling or generating religious literature instead of trying to enforce their religious beliefs via healthcare, on people who do not necessarily share all or any of those beliefs.


Again I ask, do they not have religious freedom? 

If you read the USC you will see we are supposed to have religious freedom not freedom from religion.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Beowulf said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Generally, I am all for religious freedom, however if you are an employer, you should not be allowed to cry first amendment rights, and then force your views onto your employees.


I'm sorry but only the government has the ability to force its views on anyone. Businesses do not have the ability to take your freedom or personal property if you don't follow its rules.

I'll ask you what I asked another. Do you lose your religious freedom the second you get a business licenses?




Beowulf said:


> On the other hand, I think BC should be just like any other drug - covered if medically necessary, and not covered if not, though I get the feeling that if this were the case, the doc will always find a medically necessary reason to prescribe...


Why? Again its about freedom. Why should the government have the power to tell any business what service or product it MUST offer? And if you can justify it having that power where in the USC is this power given to the federal government?

This is fascism at its height. The government doesn't want to own the business but it wants the power to control it. Control businesses and you control the goods and/or services businesses produce. Control the goods and/or services and you control the people.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> In some cases, birth control pills *are* life saving.


Examples?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> They are in the wrong business. It's sort of like a judge making a court order for a defendant to attend a mosque, because the judge is Islamic.


Nope. You see a judge has the ability to call upon armed men to force you do to his bidding. A business does not.




chamoisee said:


> Religion and medicine are not compatible.


That's really funny. Ever notice how many medical institutions are religious based? They have seemed to have gotten along fine until the government stuck its nose into the mix.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I just love the liberal double standard here. What's the old women's rights sign. . .Get the government out of my womb!!

I guess that will have to be amended to 

Get the government out of my womb***

*_except when I want to have sex and don't want to have to pay for my own birth control then the government should be required to interfere with what happens in my womb_


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Whaaaaat! do without!!!! I dont think so! this is America, the land of the free.... bies.


I keep forgetting, this is America. We deserve it. It is our right.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> I'm not sure in what cases it would be lifesaving and don't know the policies regarding it if it was lifesaving, but this was not the context of the subject.


In cases where pregnancy would be life threatening, for one very easy example.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> In cases where pregnancy would be life threatening, for one very easy example.


Those cases are pretty rare, so why would someone put their life at risk by getting pregnant? Besides, as I've stated before, if they are at risk, why not just buy the bc pills themselves or get another insurance? What other examples?


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Or, if you believe that an embryo is a human life like unto an adult or child that's been born, then I am pretty certain that a lot of abortions are also being prevented thanks to birth control pills. 

I don't know what kind of land of privilege some of you folks live in, but health insurance is not always easy or affordable for many people. As far as I know, the majority of my co-workers do not have health insurance and are very excited about the prospect of our employer considering getting it. It will not be free. We will have to pay for it. However, it will be a lot cheaper than buying health insurance elsewhere, an economic impossibility for most of us. When an employer uses something like health insurance as a means of imposing their beliefs on others, they are, in my opinion, crossing a line. 

Think about it this way: say that your employer thinks overpopulation is a problem and that people should not receive extreme lifesaving measures. They provide health insurance for you, however, it does not cover anything that your employer considers to be over the top in terms of saving lives. You cannot afford to get health insurance elsewhere and the hospital will not cover it either. No dialysis, no restarting stopped hearts, none of that, not for you and not for any of your kids who are on the policy, even though you pay for your health insurance every paycheck. Are you OK with your employer imposing his philosophical beliefs on you in this way?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> In cases where pregnancy would be life threatening, for one very easy example.


There are only two BCs that are 100% one requires surgery the other requires character. If a pregnancy would kill you depending on the pill is little better than Russian roulette.

Also can you give me a medical example where being pregnant would kill a woman?


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

I have news for you: all the character in the world is not going to help a woman if she gets raped.

ETA: Oh, I forgot. That's right. It's a woman's own fault of she gets raped. She was somehow asking for it. Men are hapless creatures that rape at random if women ask for it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You cannot afford to get health insurance elsewhere and the hospital will not cover it either. *No dialysis, no restarting stopped hearts, none of that,* not for you and not for any of your kids who are on the policy, even though you pay for your health insurance every paycheck. Are you OK with your employer imposing his philosophical beliefs on you in this way?


That has nothing at all with *paying for your own birth control*, which is all anyone has to do to solve the problem.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has nothing at all with *paying for your own birth control*, which is all anyone has to do to solve the problem.


If you are paying for your health insurance, how is this not paying for your own birth control?


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Also, what will it be next, antidepressants? Maybe people who are seriously, clinically depressed should pray their pain away or attend church? Some people class anti-depressants in the same category as drugs.

I don't want my employer knowing anything about my health unless it affects my performance at work. My healthcare decisions are not their business.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

chamoisee said:


> I don't know what kind of land of privilege some of you folks live in, but health insurance is not always easy or affordable for many people. As far as I know, the majority of my co-workers do not have health insurance and are very excited about the prospect of our employer considering getting it. It will not be free. We will have to pay for it. However, it will be a lot cheaper than buying health insurance elsewhere, an economic impossibility for most of us. When an employer uses something like health insurance as a means of imposing their beliefs on others, they are, in my opinion, crossing a line.


I live in the land of privilege called the USA. It was founded on the basic premise that all of us should be free to live out our lives as we see fit... as long as we do not interfere with the next fellers same freedom. If you dont like yer job.... quit. If you dont like the insurance plan that your employer offers.... get yer own. If you cant afford yer own... have a lash at paying yer own doctor bills, you may find its cheaper to get yer own insurance, or you may want to make some changes in yer life that will enable you to better afford insurance. You do NOT have the right to expect your employer to take care of your every need. Personal responsibility comes into play. If your employer offers you insurance.... you have the right to accept it... as is. No employer should be forced by law to provide you with any insurance whatsoever if they do not want to.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

chamoisee said:


> Some people class anti-depressants in the same category as drugs.
> 
> My healthcare decisions are not their business.


Ummm, maybe thats because anti-depressants are drugs? 

You are correct... your health care decisions are not the bosses business.... so dont make it their business by asking them to pay for them. Exercise your right to privacy... do not involve your employer at all. Pay for your own medical choices out of YOUR pocket.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

They are attending a Catholic school and are getting a Catholic school's insurance. First of all, if they don't agree with Catholic teachings, then why go to a Catholic school? Secondly, if they go to a Catholic school, even if they don't agree with Catholic teachings, they already knew what the insurance covered, or should have if they read what it covers. Thirdly, if they don't want to get insurance from somewhere else, then they can go and pay $20 per month out of pocket. 

Typical costs: 
For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. And in some states, it's mandatory; the Kaiser Family Foundation lists 33 states that require coverage of birth control. 
Cost of Birth Control Pills - Consumer Information and Prices Paid - CostHelper.com

Even my learning disabled 13 yr old son can earn $20 per month.



chamoisee said:


> Or, if you believe that an embryo is a human life like unto an adult or child that's been born, then I am pretty certain that a lot of abortions are also being prevented thanks to birth control pills.
> 
> I don't know what kind of land of privilege some of you folks live in, but health insurance is not always easy or affordable for many people. As far as I know, the majority of my co-workers do not have health insurance and are very excited about the prospect of our employer considering getting it. It will not be free. We will have to pay for it. However, it will be a lot cheaper than buying health insurance elsewhere, an economic impossibility for most of us. When an employer uses something like health insurance as a means of imposing their beliefs on others, they are, in my opinion, crossing a line.
> 
> Think about it this way: say that your employer thinks overpopulation is a problem and that people should not receive extreme lifesaving measures. They provide health insurance for you, however, it does not cover anything that your employer considers to be over the top in terms of saving lives. You cannot afford to get health insurance elsewhere and the hospital will not cover it either. No dialysis, no restarting stopped hearts, none of that, not for you and not for any of your kids who are on the policy, even though you pay for your health insurance every paycheck. Are you OK with your employer imposing his philosophical beliefs on you in this way?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> There are only two BCs that are 100% one requires surgery the other requires character. If a pregnancy would kill you depending on the pill is little better than Russian roulette.
> 
> Also can you give me a medical example where being pregnant would kill a woman?


I agree. Birth control pills did not work for me. Something to do with my hormone levels. I had 4 kids and was on birth control for 2 of them.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> I have news for you: all the character in the world is not going to help a woman if she gets raped.
> 
> ETA: Oh, I forgot. That's right. It's a woman's own fault of she gets raped. She was somehow asking for it. Men are hapless creatures that rape at random if women ask for it.


So everyone should get free birthcontrol because they may be raped? So, what do we have to pay to keep them free from STD's due to rape, or AIDS?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> If you are paying for your health insurance, how is this not paying for your own birth control?


If BC is not covered, then you aren't paying for it. Why is that so hard to understand. My insurance doesn't cover plastic surgery, lasik surgery, ect, should I get the tax payers to pay for that too? In another post you brought up rape. So, using that logic, if I can't afford to get full coverage on my car, should the tax payers pay for that too? My car is paid off, so I don't have to carry full coverage, but what happens if I'm in a wreck and total my car? I have to have a vehicle, after all, it's my right, right?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> Also, what will it be next, antidepressants? Maybe people who are seriously, clinically depressed should pray their pain away or attend church? Some people class anti-depressants in the same category as drugs.
> 
> I don't want my employer knowing anything about my health unless it affects my performance at work. My healthcare decisions are not their business.


Boy, you're really stretching. A person who is clinically depressed has no control over it. Are you saying that a woman, who knows that pregnancy could endanger her life, can't control herself enough to keep her pants on? Let me tell you something, as one of those women who risked her life to try to bring a child in this world, I CHOSE to take that risk. That's right, it's a choice. If they chose to risk their health by having sex, then they can choose to either pay for protection, get their partner to pay for it, abstain, or prepare to take the risks.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

watcher said:


> There are only two BCs that are 100% one requires surgery the other requires character. If a pregnancy would kill you depending on the pill is little better than Russian roulette.
> 
> Also can you give me a medical example where being pregnant would kill a woman?


Cancer
Ectopic pregnancy
Severe, early-onset preeclampsia
Certain connective tissue issues (some women with dwarfism don't have enough space in their torso, though by no means all)
Mother's age -- too young or too old, but mainly too young can be dangerous



chamoisee said:


> I have news for you: all the character in the world is not going to help a woman if she gets raped.
> 
> ETA: Oh, I forgot. That's right. It's a woman's own fault of she gets raped. She was somehow asking for it. Men are hapless creatures that rape at random if women ask for it.


So the baby deserves the death penalty and the rapist does not?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Narshalla said:


> Cancer
> Ectopic pregnancy
> Severe, early-onset preeclampsia
> Certain connective tissue issues (some women with dwarfism don't have enough space in their torso, though by no means all)
> ...


I was told that I was at a higher risk for cancer while taking BC. As for the ectopic pregnancy, if a woman is at risk for it, she needs to either abstain or pay for proctection. Basically, this all goes back to pregnancy. Don't they realize that if they have unprotected sex they could get pregnant. Don't they know that even with protected sex they could get pregnant? I still don't see why they can't pay the $20 a month if they are that concerned about health issues.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

You do realize that with ectopic pregnancy, the embryo has *NO* chance of survival? The only course of action there can be is to remove the pregnancy and probably that portion of fallopian tube, too, assuming it is even in the tube. Otherwise the woman dies a senseless death.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Narshalla said:


> So the baby deserves the death penalty and the rapist does not?


That is a different topic. What I am saying is that a woman can get pregnant even if she isn't sexually active, because she can get raped.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> So everyone should get free birthcontrol because they may be raped? So, what do we have to pay to keep them free from STD's due to rape, or AIDS?


This is not about *free* birth control, even though I am in fact all in favor of free birth control and heartily wish we could have free birth control for guys as well. It is about health insurance covering a very *basic* part of women's healthcare: birth control. For it not to do so is sexist, patriarchal and wrong.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> You do realize that with ectopic pregnancy, the embryo has *NO* chance of survival? The only course of action there can be is to remove the pregnancy and probably that portion of fallopian tube, too, assuming it is even in the tube. Otherwise the woman dies a senseless death.


Well, since the reason I had to have a complete hysterectomy was due to an ectopic pregnancy and my tube ruptured, yes, I'm well aware of it. Still don't agree that a Catholic organization needs to provide coverage for Birth control pills though, especially since 2 of my pregnancies happened while I was on the pill.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> This is not about *free* birth control, even though I am in fact all in favor of free birth control and heartily wish we could have free birth control for guys as well. It is about health insurance covering a very *basic* part of women's healthcare: birth control. For it not to do so is sexist, patriarchal and wrong.


I have no problem with birth control covered by insurance companies, as long as the provider isn't paid by an organization that teaches against the use of contraceptions due to religious convictions. In that case they need to either get insurance that covers it or buy it themselves.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummm, maybe that's because anti-depressants are drugs?


They are pharmaceutical drugs, _not_ drugs such as LSD, meth, etc. There is a difference. Some people don't see much difference between an anti-depressant, which can be life saving and crack cocaine. 



> You are correct... your health care decisions are not the bosses business.... so don't make it their business by asking them to pay for them. Exercise your right to privacy... do not involve your employer at all. Pay for your own medical choices out of YOUR pocket.


If I have to pay for half the cost of my health insurance, then it IS out of my pocket. It isn't as if I am getting health coverage for free. I'm paying for it. You make it sound as if such an employee is getting a free ride and being a mooch.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> If BC is not covered, then you aren't paying for it. Why is that so hard to understand. My insurance doesn't cover plastic surgery, lasik surgery, ect, should I get the tax payers to pay for that too? In another post you brought up rape. So, using that logic, if I can't afford to get full coverage on my car, should the tax payers pay for that too? My car is paid off, so I don't have to carry full coverage, but what happens if I'm in a wreck and total my car? I have to have a vehicle, after all, it's my right, right?


Look, this is a lot more like finding out that your car insurance is owned by Orthodox Jews and will only provide coverage for days Sunday through Friday (before sundown) and if you drive on Saturday, you are not covered. 

Comparing birth control to plastic surgery is just silly. One is fairly necessary and mainstream, the other is due to vanity unless you have undergone some face-altering accident or surgery.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Comparing birth control to plastic surgery is just silly.


Not as silly as this comparison: 





> Look, this is a lot more like finding out that your* car insurance* is owned by Orthodox Jews and will only provide coverage for days Sunday through Friday (before sundown) and if you drive on Saturday, you are not covered.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> If you are paying for your health insurance, how is this not paying for your own birth control?


She is NOT paying for her insuracne the school is. She thinks the school should be *FORCED* to buy her more than it wants to pay for.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> Also, what will it be next, antidepressants? Maybe people who are seriously, clinically depressed should pray their pain away or attend church? Some people class anti-depressants in the same category as drugs.
> 
> I don't want my employer knowing anything about my health unless it affects my performance at work. My healthcare decisions are not their business.


If you allow them to pay for your medical care by paying for your insuracne then you have just made it their business. If you don't want them involved in it then tell them "thanks but no thanks" to their money.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chamoisee said:


> Look, this is a lot more like finding out that your car insurance is owned by Orthodox Jews and will only provide coverage for days Sunday through Friday (before sundown) and if you drive on Saturday, you are not covered.
> 
> Comparing birth control to plastic surgery is just silly. One is fairly necessary and mainstream, the other is due to vanity unless you have undergone some face-altering accident or surgery.


If my car insurance was owned by an Orthodox Jew and only provided coverage for certain days, then I would either abide by that or find another provider. 

As to comparing birth control to plastic surgery it's no more silly than comparing it to antidepressants. Although you're correct, one is fairly necessary and it's not birth control.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> This is not about *free* birth control, even though I am in fact all in favor of free birth control and heartily wish we could have free birth control for guys as well. It is about health insurance covering a very *basic* part of women's healthcare: birth control. For it not to do so is sexist, patriarchal and wrong.


Haven't you been reading ANYTHING here? The entire thing is about the woman wanting someone else to pay for BC. It had *NOTHING* to do with preventing any insuracne from providing BC nor preventing any woman from buying BC. 

She's a whiny brat who thinks everything she wants should be taken from someone and given to her. She's 30+ year woman with a 2 year old's view of the world: Give it to me or I'll cry waaaaaaa!!!!!

Where in the world does she, and it seem you, get the idea that you have the right to force someone else to buy something for you they do not wish to buy?!?!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

chamoisee said:


> Look, this is a lot more like finding out that your car insurance is owned by Orthodox Jews and will only provide coverage for days Sunday through Friday (before sundown) and if you drive on Saturday, you are not covered.


Let's use this as an example. Say you know this is the limits on the insurance but you like the fact it is cheap. After you buy it you decide you want it to cover you on the Jewish Sabbath. You ask the company to do this and they refuse. So you get a couple of friends, pick up a few firearms and to into the corporate offices and tell the company's board they will either start providing the coverage you want or bad things will start happening to the company's buildings, vehicles and maybe even employees. Does that sound fair to you?

Now what's the difference in that and the federal government telling a business to provide something it doesn't want to or face fines and/or prison terms? Other than the fact the thugs in the government aren't breaking the law, after all the government makes the law.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> I was told that I was at a higher risk for cancer while taking BC. As for the ectopic pregnancy, if a woman is at risk for it, she needs to either abstain or pay for protection. Basically, this all goes back to pregnancy. Don't they realize that if they have unprotected sex they could get pregnant. Don't they know that even with protected sex they could get pregnant? I still don't see why they can't pay the $20 a month if they are that concerned about health issues.


Look at the list again . . . really _look_ at it.

How many abortions occur because of those conditions? Very, very few.

The vast overwhelming majority of abortions are elective procedures for the convenience of the (no longer going to be a) mother.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Narshalla said:


> Look at the list again . . . really _look_ at it.
> 
> How many abortions occur because of those conditions? Very, very few.
> 
> The vast overwhelming majority of abortions are elective procedures for the convenience of the (no longer going to be a) mother.


True. I misunderstood what you were saying, but I agree with you 100%.


----------

