Is Sandra Fluke Coordinating with the White House?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Hillarie
I find it suspicious that now 30 sponsors have withdrawn from his show. I've never seen anything like this in my life. We've all heard rumors about Obama silencing people behind the scenes in less than savory ways. Something is going on here. This is not about contraception. This is about Fluke seemingly helping him with his anti Catholic agenda and promoting the idea of the government having the right to force people to install his policies. I'm glad you posted this even though a lot of people seem too brainwashed to be able to see what's really going on here.

They're leaving that crook because of public outrage. He's a clown, so why would any company wish to be associated with him?

On this, I soundly agree. My views on Ms. Fluke's testimony notwithstanding, he was way out of line. One wonders if he regularly does lines.

/TOA

reply to post by MrXYZ

99% use it now because it's covered by health insurance...once it isn't (as that ridiculous GOP Blunt bill proposed), less people will be able to afford it. Ergo the amount of unwanted pregnancies will rise, which will cost taxpayers waaaaaay more than the pill

Maybe I'm missing something.

If all this is already covered, what's with these new policies ?

How does Medicare cover prescriptions ?

Originally posted by xuenchen
What will happen when the forced insurance starts ...

I hope everybody is ready for taxpayers to "help" people who can't afford the exchange policies rates.

There are too many unemployed that won't qualify for medicaid.

And any increases in medicaid enrollments will be taxpayer funded.

Who's ready to pay ??

I'm not.

Obamacare is one of the biggest scams in U.S. history. It's delicious irony that...groups with a certain political ideology decry big corporations and support Obamacare at the same time, since it was designed to line the pockets of insurance companies.

/TOA

reply to post by xuenchen


There are NO quotes from Sandra in your article. Doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious?

Originally posted by xuenchen
Sandra Fluke is claiming she is being silenced by -- Rush Limbaugh !!

I found the video and she actually said that he was ATTEMPTING to silence her. She is NOT being silenced and she didn't claim that she is being silenced. Video Here

When a public person of Rush Limbaugh's position and stature publicly insults a someone like this, for THREE days in a row, it IS most likely an attempt to silence her. He didn't like what she was saying and insulted her to shut her up. Which is his right. And her retaliation is also her right. She's just a lot smarter than Rush.

Go Sandra!

reply to post by xuenchen


Yes, OVER THE PAST DECADE, health care costs have risen. You realize much of Obama's health care act has yet to take effect, right? You can blame the cost increases on Bush.

But yes, Rush was attempting to silence Sandra, but she's a lot smarter than him. He shouldn't have taken her on if he didn't want to get into a tussle.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes I am always suspicious.

But after watching the video, the article does kinda seem accurate anyway.

She actually did say just about what the author summarized.

BTW, the video is moving down the page as we speak.

this link may stay for a while

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


reply to post by MrXYZ


And perhaps take this into account (literally)

They are already asking for $111 Billion more ......

Soaring Cost Estimate Prompts Health Law Doubts


Who's gonna pay for all this ?

You guys?

The puzzle is missing some pieces I think.

reply to post by The Old American


No, you aren't willing to have insurance premiums stay lower because contraception is cheaper than the alternative...that's the real issue here. And it's all based on irrational (and expensive) religious beliefs

Once again: Contraception is CHEAPER for tax payers and insurance premium payers than the alternative. By being against contraception being covered, you are essentially in favour of rising insurance premiums!! And at the same time, you make contraception unaffordable for many women in this country, putting not only their health at risk, but also resulting in higher costs for the average tax payer.

Your religious beliefs are costing the rest of your fellow citizens!!

reply to post by xuenchen


And if she is working with the white house...does that make the message any less important???

What matters is she is standing up for something that a lot of women (and men) care about.


I love how people say "Fluke's testimony was no accident" OR "This has all been planned".....well yeah....you just don't accidentally find yourself one day testifying to Congress.

She obviously cares about this issue and has been planning to talk about it.


The Right's desperation to shut this girl down and demonize her is hilarious...and they don't even realize how damaging it is to their cause.

reply to post by The Old American

can't afford $10 a month for condoms

No matter how many times you or other conservatives try to say she is talking about condoms, it will never make it true.

It only shows your ignorance of the topic.

In today's Palm Beach Post they allowed a letter from a reader which states this:

Sandra Fluke says you need $3,000 for 3 years of birth control? Sounds to me like this describes someone who works in a brothel or as an escort. Limbaugh apologized for what? - Ken Jackowitz

I just called and cancelled my subscription. Don't these people ever learn?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The Right's desperation to shut this girl down and demonize her is hilarious...and they don't even realize how damaging it is to their cause.

It'll bite them in the ass, just like that ridiculous Blunt bill did. They look like the bunch of bought sock puppets they really are, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, NOT a party that represents citizens. That's why they supported the whole "corporations are people" thing.

reply to post by xuenchen

Originally posted by xuenchen
If all this is already covered, what's with these new policies ?

Most states already have laws that insurance must cover birth control. It's been that way for years. This is just to pick up the rest who DON'T currently cover it. It's a federal application of what most states are already doing.

Source

Originally posted by MrXYZ
She's presenting the majority as 99% of women use contraception

White House birth control statistics do't add up
You might want to recheck your numbers. Don't spread the Obama spin. It's wrong.

To those who are against contraception because they're believe it's anti-Christian: Shut up unless ....

oh gawd ...

1 - I do not agree with the Catholic Church on their interpretation of Onanism. Neither do a lot of people who are supporting the Church's First Amendment rights. You don't have to agree with someone to support their Constitutional rights.

2 - Shut up? Shut up just because you disagree? Disagree with their Constitutional rights and/or disagree with their religion? NO. What a silly thing for you to say. So ... double NO NO to you.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by The Old American

 

No, you aren't willing have insurance premium stay lower because contraception is cheaper than the alternative...that's the real issue here. And it's all based on irrational (and expensive) religious beliefs

Once again: Contraception is CHEAPER for tax payers and insurance premium payers than the alternative. By being against contraception being covered, you are essentially in favour of rising insurance premiums!! And at the same time, you make contraception unaffordable for many women in this country, putting not only their health at risk, but also resulting in higher costs for the average tax payer.

Your religious beliefs are costing the rest of your fellow citizens!!

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with anything. What gave you that bright idea? Anyone that disagrees with you absolutely must be in disagreement on religious grounds? It couldn't possibly have to do with personal responsibility, or freedom, or any of a number of non-liberal ideas. How must gas mileage does that short bus you're driving get?

And just how much do you think premiums will be lowered when insurance companies are required to provide contraception for approximately 100 million women of child-bearing age? Math are good!

/TOA

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by The Old American

 

can't afford $10 a month for condoms

No matter how many times you or other conservatives try to say she is talking about condoms, it will never make it true.

It only shows your ignorance of the topic.

Conservative? I'm not sure who you're lying..er...talking about, but it ain't me. I never claimed to be, nor am I, a conservative.

I never said she was talking about condoms. I said that condoms cost $10 a month. Condoms..are...contraceptives, right? But obviously she can't use those! That would interfere with her right to receive pleasure! She must only use the pill, which costs upwards of $75! More money equals more protection, you know!

And you call me ignorant. Laughable.

/TOA

Does anyone think that the big mail order prescription companies are behind this whole debate ?

The health insurance companies use them. They do not self insure themselves for prescriptions.

Outfits like Medco and Caremark stand to make billions from this.

Medco has been caught more than once for meddling script-switching and kickbacks.

Medco also is I believe the largest Medicare script provider.


Google "Medco fraud"

Originally posted by The Old American

Obamacare is one of the biggest scams in U.S. history. It's delicious irony that...groups with a certain political ideology decry big corporations and support Obamacare at the same time, since it was designed to line the pockets of insurance companies.
/TOA

Obama wanted to have a public option in his healthcare reform. Who fought this the hardest? The GOP. What industry would be hit the hardest if a public option existed? The insurance companies. Now, who is it again that is most concerned with lining the pockets of the insurance companies?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by MrXYZ
She's presenting the majority as 99% of women use contraception

White House birth control statistics do't add up
You might want to recheck your numbers. Don't spread the Obama spin. It's wrong.

To those who are against contraception because they're believe it's anti-Christian: Shut up unless ....

oh gawd ...

1 - I do not agree with the Catholic Church on their interpretation of Onanism. Neither do a lot of people who are supporting the Church's First Amendment rights. You don't have to agree with someone to support their Constitutional rights.

2 - Shut up? Shut up just because you disagree? Disagree with their Constitutional rights and/or disagree with their religion? NO.

What a silly thing for you to say. So ... double NO NO to you.

edit on 3/7/2012 by FlyersFan because: spelling 'spin'

Obviously the author of that article is beyond clueless when it comes to contraception. It's not merely used for preventing pregnancies, so her maths simply doesn't stack up

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by The Old American

Obamacare is one of the biggest scams in U.S. history. It's delicious irony that...groups with a certain political ideology decry big corporations and support Obamacare at the same time, since it was designed to line the pockets of insurance companies.
/TOA

Obama wanted to have a public option in his healthcare reform. Who fought this the hardest? The GOP. What industry would be hit the hardest if a public option existed? The insurance companies. Now, who is it again that is most concerned with lining the pockets of the insurance companies?

Oh, he certainly paraded a public option around on a leash like a poodle at a dog show, didn't he? But who here really, truly thought a public option was going to pass? It never was going to. This whole Obamacare dog show was fixed from the beginning to pour more money into insurance companies and big pharma.

/TOA

reply to post by MrXYZ


I was going to add a comment. But you said it just as well as I could. (No doubt she's a covert operative or what is called in intelligence a "display case" Someone you put forward to tie a face with an idea for the "femenazi's", another Rush-ísm)