Obama Rebukes Limbaugh, Thanks woman called a "slut" and "prostitute"

reply to post by David9176


Rush Limbaugh went way over the line.

It's time to take him down.

The bottom line on this argument is this...the Government has no place telling private insurance companies what they must cover. End of argument. It is not their function. Where does it end? Does the government need to force companies, or they themselves provide every single thing a person "needs" (or wants...yea). Individual responsibility has to come into play at some point. I listened to her statements, was interesting how she came up with the costs, complaining how students just can't afford them...well, I was a student, if I couldn't afford things, I didn't get them...while sex is fun, it's a choice...not a right that needs to be financed by others.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Maslo

 

Because if you wont, poor people will have more unwanted children -> more criminality and social system strain -> more taxes needed for police and social system funding, or decreased quality of life.

Poor people have been having children since Adam and Eve. Theft and crime are problems of moral decline, not how much someone makes for a living. Rich people commit terrible crimes too, Bernie Madoff anyone?

Yes, and there was criminality since Adam and Eve
Statistically, the more unwanted a child is, and more poor its parents are, the greater the likehood of future of criminality or poverty.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Azadok

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Maslo

 

Because if you wont, poor people will have more unwanted children -> more criminality and social system strain -> more taxes needed for police and social system funding, or decreased quality of life.

Poor people have been having children since Adam and Eve. Theft and crime are problems of moral decline, not how much someone makes for a living. Rich people commit terrible crimes too, Bernie Madoff anyone?

It's not about being poor in money that develops a person it is moral character and parenting , both of these are in short supply today . Parents have their hands tied by big brother on how they raise a difficult child they are forced to spare the rod which entitles the child .

I know this, Masalo implied that poverty determines morality. I strongly disagree.

Are you denying the correlation between poverty and crime?

And its not only about crime - having children while being dependent on welfare is a selfish and irresponsible thing to do, because of the children themselves.

reply to post by Believer101


Because they don't listen to anyone. It is the conservative mindset sex = bad and immoral, yet they turn out to be the biggest pervs. Know who like to call women sluts for having sex in this day and age? The men that aren't getting any. I like you have to have it because I get ovarian cysts. But you can't open their eyes to the health issues surrounding this. You will never get them to understand that for many women that can't get the script covered it will end up with them having their reproductive organs being removed or prevent them from living any kind of normal life. They don't care as long as it keeps just one girl from having recreational sex that they are too repulsive themselves to have on their own.

What good old drug abusing Rush and his feeble minded worshipers are trying to do is turn the debate into one about sex. They don't care because they equate hormonal birth control to a condom. They overlook the fact that vasectomies are covered by health insurance. They overlook the fact that birth control is frequently used as a treatment for other conditions besides preventing pregnancies. But since were gonna go this route with them let's take insulin and other diabetic care materials and require it be an out of pocket cost as well. Or how about we take cholesterol regulating medications out of the plans as well. If you aren't willing to have my needs as part of the plan because you can't handle the fact that some woman might have sex as a result. I don't see why I should have to have things covered under a plan because you were a gluttonous pig that made bad dietary choices and failed to get the proper exercise.

reply to post by KeliOnyx






second line.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is shocking- Rush has been a wart on the ass of humanity as long as he has been in the spotlight. He gets paid to say what the GOP really thinks, but are not in a political position to say.

Originally posted by BigFrigginAl
The bottom line on this argument is this...the Government has no place telling private insurance companies what they must cover. End of argument. It is not their function. Where does it end? Does the government need to force companies, or they themselves provide every single thing a person "needs" (or wants...yea). Individual responsibility has to come into play at some point. I listened to her statements, was interesting how she came up with the costs, complaining how students just can't afford them...well, I was a student, if I couldn't afford things, I didn't get them...while sex is fun, it's a choice...not a right that needs to be financed by others.

If it were up to the insurance companies they would only cover the flu

Also, it's in the insurance companies' best interest to cover contraception as the alternative (aka pregnancy) costs A LOT MORE!!! Please use your brain

reply to post by BigFrigginAl


There is a difference between needs and wants. Stop for a minute consider which is more important. Having enough food to eat or buying a pill that if you do not take it will result in one of your testicles getting a growth the size of a peach and having to be removed? This is not the same as you deciding well i am not going to buy a box of condoms tonight because i am saving for an xbox.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by BigFrigginAl

 

There is a difference between needs and wants. Stop for a minute consider which is more important. Having enough food to eat or buying a pill that if you do not take it will result in one of your testicles getting a growth the size of a peach and having to be removed? This is not the same as you deciding well i am not going to buy a box of condoms tonight because i am saving for an xbox.

If the choice is between an Xbox and condoms I strongly suggest you go for condoms. Why? Because the follow up costs of not having an Xbox are FAR below the cost of having a baby.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the risk of STDs.

Conservatives get their talking points and perspectives from a thrice married
drug addict with a limp little tallythingy

Funny how this information can no longer be found on the Washington Post Website. Let's hope it lives forever here. Ms. Fluke enrolled in Georgetown knowing what their policy was and was determined to fight it from day one and has been fighting it for 3 years. Now she is being used as a tool by Pelosi and the rest of her ilk to push this continuing issue and all of the underlying issues attached to it.

Fluke was recruited to testify for a reason

Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.



www.washingtonpost.com... R_blog.html

Wonder why this interview got scrubbed?? Can you figure out why??
Let's try this again
www.washingtonpost.com... R_blog.html


Buried not lost go to article #34
www.washingtonpost.com... R_blog.html

If it were up to the insurance companies they would only cover the flu

Also, it's in the insurance companies' best interest to cover contraception as the alternative (aka pregnancy) costs A LOT MORE!!! Please use your brain

I guess insurance companies should start paying for people to get lap-bands and gastric bypass surgeries as well because it might end in a net positive effect because of the health problems obesity might cause someone down the road...........this logic is very flawed and there is no proper analysis that would predict how many fewer pregnancies would occur. If it was cost-saving than why are insurance companies against this issue?

The flat out truth is that the costs of convenience and comfort should never be passed onto anyone other than oneself.

Originally posted by Believer101

I've said this at least four times now, but since most of you seem to have completely missed my posts I'll say it again. Without my birth control, I will sometimes go months without a period. Without my friends birth control, she's a VIRGIN, she will bleed more than she won't in a month, and her endometriosis will flare up.

Being on birth control does NOT equal having sex.

I noticed your posts, Regarding issues such as theses people get sucked into a tunnel vision without viewing the bigger picture or implications.

Some examples in support of your statement, if a physician treating a female of reproductive age for a serious medical condition such as rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, lupus, crohns disease, leprosy, just to name a few determines that the best course of treatment for their patient is drug called Thalidomide they are required to require the patient to use two forms of birth control, pills being a good primary and possible iud as secondary to prevent any chance of the woman becoming pregnant, there are very stringent requirements because when this drug was first introduced it was prescribed as a sedative and effective treatment for morning sickness, it was removed from the market 5 years later when it was found to be responsible to causing severe birth defects, commonly referred to these days as "flipper babies" The precautions for this drug not only apply to women but also to men as it can be carried through their sperm and cause just as severe birth defects.

Many people suffering from severe acne have benefited from a medication called Acutane. If it is determined to be the most effective medical course by a female's treating physician and she is of child birthing age he must require her to agree to use two separate forms of birth control for the duration of one month prior to starting treatment to one month after ending treatment with required pregnancy tests in between, the is due to the severe birth defects it has been found to cause.

From a more personal experience of my own, my daughter was forced into sex against her will when she was 15, the guy was older, quite largely built and threatened to harm me when I was home alone if she did not comply, the experience was so t traumatic that she couldn't tell anyone what happened to her for nearly 3 years although it was obvious by her decline in health over that time culminating in full blown agoraphobia, that something terrible had happened. When was finally able to tell us I contacted the police to file charges and they refused (he was the nephew of cop I later discovered.) The level of PTSD she suffers as a result of this has been likened by her psychiatrist to that seen in soldiers coming home from a war.. The medications she must take possibly for the rest of her life to allow her any possibility of living a normal life would seriously adversely effect a pregnancy and the doctor is seriously of the opinion that considering the emotional damage she has suffered it would be advisable for her not to become pregnant as going through a pregnancy would be too destructive to her health and additionally hazardous to the baby's health to even consider. My daughter is required to take birth control, and because she is extremely sensitive to quite a number of medications the $40 to $60 dollar a month birth control is not suitable for her, the only one we have found that she does not react to costs closer to 150 a month without insurance so the $3000 outlay that was mentioned is not really that farfetched.

Rush Limbaugh, pill-addled loudmouth, said some incredibly stupid things while being deliberately offensive.

First, he obviously thinks that birth-control pills are like condoms - you don't use any until a sex act, and then you use one per sex act. No, the hormonal birth-control pills have to be taken one-a-day, whether the woman's sex life is active or very slight. In fact, it is strongly recommended to take the pill even during months with no sexual activity anticipated because the body must adjust and stay adjusted to the dosage. Limbaugh made the mistake - 50 years after the pill was invented - that we might see among 12-year-olds.

Second, Sandra Fluke was telling the story of another student, a young woman who was not having sex with men, not doing anything that would risk pregnancy, but who had severe (and severely painful) ovarian cysts. The hormonal birth control pills had the effect of shrinking the cysts and reducing the pain. But because Georgetown student health services wouldn't provide these pills -- even for non-contraceptive purposes -- these cysts got so bad that the woman was required to have surgery to remove one of her two ovaries. Now her chances of having a baby are permanently impaired and she not only has been subjected to surgery but will probably need hormone replacement medicines for the rest of her life.

reply to post by Maslo

Are you denying the correlation between poverty and crime?

Yes, because some of the biggest criminals in human history have not been poor, they were the RICH! People resort to crime out of poor morality not lack of money.

reply to post by jibeho


My god
Your saying the woman whom testified before congress was actually educated in what she was talking about?!!

This violates conservative values!!!

reply to post by jibeho


How does that change anything

Not offering contraception ends up costing the insurance companies MORE, which means premiums for everyone else go up!! It's MORONIC not to offer it, and in the case of those schools they are a financial burden on the rest of us paying health insurance.

Doesn't change that that hypocritical clown Rush called her a slut while flying to the Dominican Republic with a TON of Viagra (that funny enough often is covered).

reply to post by SaturnFX


I'm saying she enrolled with a purpose to fight. She chose to attend a Conservative Jesuit University... She chose to pay $47,000 a year for law school. She chooses to take birth control. Plenty of other top notch law schools and universities that I'm sure would fit her needs for free pills. She made the choice to attend and to fight a PRIVATE JESUIT university.

Originally posted by Bugman82

If it were up to the insurance companies they would only cover the flu

Also, it's in the insurance companies' best interest to cover contraception as the alternative (aka pregnancy) costs A LOT MORE!!! Please use your brain

I guess insurance companies should start paying for people to get lap-bands and gastric bypass surgeries as well because it might end in a net positive effect because of the health problems obesity might cause someone down the road...........this logic is very flawed and there is no proper analysis that would predict how many fewer pregnancies would occur. If it was cost-saving than why are insurance companies against this issue?

The flat out truth is that the costs of convenience and comfort should never be passed onto anyone other than oneself.

Insurance companies should do whatever they can to keep overall premiums low for the majority of people. So yes, if it helps keeping premiums low for the majority, they should offer it.

And saying there are no studies proving contraception results in fewer pregnancies is LAUGHABLE