Sandra Fluke - Advocate for Mandatory Health Coverage for Sex Changes

mrctv.org...

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

and now

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

Ms. Fluke misrepresented herself a bit. The first step is get the birth control paid for, foot in the door, go for the sex change coverage, too.

Georgetown should not have to put up with a student who in attempting to undermine an article of faith.

She is a radical activist and we ought to remember this if she get any more spotlight time.

Just my opinion, but why even have insurance if it's going to be diluted and lobotomized by wide and sweeping coverage exclusions?

If coverage is going to be mandatory on all citizens, then it damn well better cover all needs, not just those that conservatives/liberals/insurance companies deem cost efficient or "moral."

Personally,I think this woman is a fraud.

Second, "mandatory" Healthcare is wrong.

That's not the Governments Job.Period.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
Just my opinion, but why even have insurance if it's going to be diluted and lobotomized by wide and sweeping coverage exclusions?

If coverage is going to be mandatory on all citizens, then it damn well better cover all needs, not just those that conservatives/liberals/insurance companies deem cost efficient or "moral."

An all-inclusive coverage for every man, woman and child for the United States? Do you know that astronomical cost that would amount to? It would make our Defense Budget look like pocket-change. As it is now, a sizable portion of one's insurance premiums is due to forced mandated coverage options.

Take for instance, when I was growing up. My parents maintained catastrophic insurance (life or limb). No sniffle checkups, doctor visits were not covered, etc, etc. (not to derail, but rather show how stuffing all the goodies and coverages will balloon costs even further).

But I agree with your last sentiment -- hence the reason that the State should have no business in the Insurance business except to ensure that Contract Law is being upheld. Period. Otherwise we just get politics.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


Abortions? Hair plugs? Chin-tucks? Liposuction? Botox treatments? Penile implants? Hair implants? Hey, everything goes these days, right? Add infanticide while your at it. Not yet??? Well it could happen about the time you get euthanized for not being a productive worker.

When did 1984 get banned? Some posters haven't got a darn clue.

I think Obamacare belongs in the shredder.

Good one for the states that are fighting it.

Originally posted by sonnny1
Personally,I think this woman is a fraud.

Second, "mandatory" Healthcare is wrong.

That's not the Governments Job.Period.

I don't necessarily agree with all of her positions either, and I'm the last person you'll find advocating mandatory health insurance coverage, but the Washington cabal found it necessary to force it upon us anyway. Until that travesty is undone, mandatory insurance will happen, and if/when it does, it should provide for ALL non-cosmetic medical procedures, regardless of moral, personal or religious beliefs.

Excluding any non-cosmetic procedure opens the door to other exclusions, which will eventually negate ANY positive impact that universal insurance may bring.

reply to post by ~Vixen~

I like your image of "diluted and lobotomized." But I'm not sure that it's appropriate. Perhaps the uncovered areas aren't that important, or are supplied already elsewhere, to use "lobotomized."

If coverage is going to be mandatory on all citizens, then it damn well better cover all needs,

If you mean it should cover every procedure done by a doctor or nurse in a timely manner, well, it can't and that isn't being accomplished anywhere. Look at waiting lines in any country funding the health care. I know England's Nation Health Service is refusing to fund certain procedures, and is delaying the rest. Sometimes hoping, it seems, that the patient dies before the scheduled procedure.

The US can't do it either. The demand for medical services is growing rapidly. Part of it is due to poverty, and part is due to an aging population. While it might be nice to receive plastic surgery or other elective procedures for free, it won't happen. Services will be rationed one way or the other.

We don't have, and can't get, the money to do it. Medical service will be rationed. Do we let the government ration it, or do we make our own provisions?

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
Just my opinion, but why even have insurance if it's going to be diluted and lobotomized by wide and sweeping coverage exclusions?

Then don't get insurance.

The only voice a business should listen to is supply and demand. Anything beyond that is wanton politics.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


Sorry. NOTHING should be considered.


Obamacare is unconstitutional.


For anyone to believe that those things Ms. Fluke believes should be covered,should study their Constitution first.

Originally posted by charles1952
The US can't do it either. The demand for medical services is growing rapidly. Part of it is due to poverty, and part is due to an aging population.

And I would add that the easy access and insurance scheme's set in place also drive up demand. The notion that you have a cough? I have insurance, I will just go to the doctor! Couple that with the insurance scheme that it follows a job and not a person -- it puts us into a large mess along with what you stated.

Did we need to reform the insurance setup? Absolutely. Did we need to reform it into a behemoth of a bureaucracy? Nope, but the insurance companies sure do love it.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by ~Vixen~

 

Abortions? Hair plugs? Chin-tucks? Liposuction? Botox treatments? Penile implants? Hair implants? Hey, everything goes these days, right? Add infanticide while your at it.

I think Obamacare belongs in the shredder.

Again, I absolutey abhor Obamacare too...

I'm NOT you enemy, but simply someone pointing out that until mandatory coverage is repealed, we need to ensure that we're not going to get screwed with outrageous insurance premiums that cover a limited number of procedures while lining the pockets of the insurance companies.

I have Parkinson's disease, and over time my medical needs will rise. If we start to allow coverage exclusions for any/all reasons, will I be able to secure the medical care I need, or will the insurance companies deem some procedures "experimental," or use some other excuse to preserve their bottom line. I think we all know which way my insurance policy will read unless we actively dictate otherwise.

Where is Georgetown University's anti-Fluke?

Surely some enterprising young woman from Georgetown could step up and defend this Universities policy.

The only question is would the media even care?

Thank you for posting. I knew this wasn't a spontaneous outburst of a sudden desire to help women with cyclical cramping. It was so conveniently timed with POTUS' mandate.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


Sorry to get so riled. My apologies. I am very sorry to hear about your Parkinson's disease. I hope you will always be able to get cutting edge treatment and enjoy your life to the fullest.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


I hope one day they find a cure for Parkinson's disease......

I am sorry to hear you have this also.

Here's a little story on healthcare reform.Its actually eyeopening.

In the end, in typical big government fashion, the health reform movement made a crucial mistake in placing the power of cost-cutting measures in the hands of those who are not actually delivering direct patient care. Big Pharma made deals with the creators of Obamacare, and these deals may or may not end up being successful for the drug companies themselves. Most notably, consumers could end up losing because if needed new drugs cannot come to market due to restricted brand drug availability in local ACO formularies, resulting in decreased revenues and decreased research and development, then future breakthroughs and patient care innovations may never come to fruition.

Likewise, ACOs will be creating hundreds of community-based managed care power brokers, who will pit a select few potential profiteers (individuals and health systems) against the broader group of medical providers in a local area. If the doctors at the bedside and office setting cannot make ends meet and thus restrict services/access and/or close up shop altogether, the community as a whole will suffer.

Obamacare: Healthcare's "New World Order"

Originally posted by charles1952
The US can't do it either. The demand for medical services is growing rapidly. Part of it is due to poverty, and part is due to an aging population. While it might be nice to receive plastic surgery or other elective procedures for free, it won't happen. Services will be rationed one way or the other.

Maybe I've been unclear... I don't advocate coverage of elective or cosmetic procedures, however regardless of overwhelming opinion and belief, sex changes DO NOT fall into those categories.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Sorry. NOTHING should be considered.


Obamacare is unconstitutional.


For anyone to believe that those things Ms. Fluke believes should be covered,should study their Constitution first.

As previously stated, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. The Patriot Act, REAL ID, Obamacare and other Congressional edicts are all uncostitutional, but until the SCOTUS throws it out, we're stuck with it. My point is to make sure that until such time that these travesties are undone, we need to make sure that we, the people, aren't getting screwed simply to appease others phobias or to increase the profits of insurance carriers.

reply to post by Carseller4


Maybe they all want free birth control.
To take a stand against it would probably seem anti-women's rights.
Nice idea though. Maybe Rush could regain some of the sponsors who dumped him AFTER he apologized to Fluke.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by Carseller4

 

Maybe they all want free birth control.
To take a stand against it would probably seem anti-women's rights.
Nice idea though. Maybe Rush could regain some of the sponsors who dumped him AFTER he apologized to Fluke.

It looks to me like a re-election strategy by the admin, honestly. The way this is playing out, with the admin making a play for the women's vote, demonizing conservatives as anti-woman.

Personally..

My opinion..

This is the dumbest #%# argument this country has ever had.

Question.

Does anyone have a prescription plan with their insurance.

You know, those plans that allow 90 day refills by mail.

Companies like Medco, Caremark and some others have been around for decades.

Co-payments vary with different plans.

If people claim that many women are on b.c. pills, aren't those by prescription ?

And they ARE covered I believe.

I wonder if the Fluke has a prescription plan with HER insurance ???