[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By very large, do you mean less than 13% of teens to age 15?

13% seems pretty significant to me. That would be 39,160,901 teenagers (using 2010 census data.)

[Waragainstsleep]

Now multiply by a decade or two.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No, I understood you were being sarcastic about preventing more "stupid liberals" from being born, and that it's in the conservative's best interest to support Obama's birth control measures to prevent that from happening.

I had a problem with you only blaming women, which is a common conservative trait.

Another demo of your obsession with blaming conservatives for the things liberals are most guilty of.

Did you hear Obama mention any blame for anyone other than women? He even named women from all walks of life. You still don't get how ironic it was for you to bring up the word responsibility, when this whole point of this phony issue is to get as far away from that as possible.

Again, I would ask you- in his pandering, did Obama mention men or any responsibility on their part?

Of course not. The whole phony non-issue is just liberals trying to scare those helpless victim women into voting for more big government nonsense or else "GASP! They won't have access to contraception!" Basically, one HAS to believe that women are mostly idiots to actually fall for such a stupid ploy- and I submit Obama and many liberal Democrats actually do. Just look at what comes out of their mouths. Just look at them drumming the beat of stupidity on this entire non-issue.

FOX News FOX. FOX News blather blather.

We get it already. You and other libs are absolutely obsessed with Fox News.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

Doesn't the counter dumb-beat bug you too? The House Republicans had a press conference about this and one of them actually had the gall to say "and then they came for the Baptists..."

****ing really?

Really?

Eeesh. I think I've mentioned it before- that all bastardizing of the "and then they came.." bit just needs to end. Instant FAIL, no matter what's being cast as the 'new holocaust'.

Believe me, I don't have any faith in the Republican "leadership" to be any less dumb than the Democrats. They're all politicians and I don't have much faith in any of them. It's usually just a question of "Which bunch of dumbasses will actually obey the Constitution and stay the hell out of most people's way?" Sometimes that's the Republicans, virtually never the Democrats.

That said- Republicans responding (stupidly) to a stupid non-issue that's been dredged up out of thin air by Democrats doesn't rank as low as dredging up the stupid non-issue to begin with. If Republicans in congress had any sense what-so-ever, they'd call the Dems on the stupidity of this, and just move on and not allow the Dems to get the sound-bites they're looking for. "Oh lookie! The Republicans stepped in the shit we took on the floor!" That's all any of this is about- election year nonsense.

I'm guessing, at the heart of it, there must be a poll somewhere that says the usual 'guarnteed voter bloc' of women voters isn't as jazzed on Obama as they were during the Hopey-Changey days of 2008, and so along comes: "What scare tactic can we dredge up to scare the panties off all these poor poor helpless victims and get more of them back in our camp?"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

13% seems pretty significant to me. That would be 39,160,901 teenagers (using 2010 census data.)

Far too few to assume "they're all doing it" and model your solution around the minority, lowest common denominator.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Abstinence is the best birth control. Just saying.

For people like you it works because you hate sex, you do not have any sexual desire and it is easy to say no.

For the rest of us we have to use birth control and condoms to protect against STD.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Another demo of your obsession with blaming conservatives for the things liberals are most guilty of.

*snip*

We get it already. You and other libs are absolutely obsessed with Fox News.

This is the second time in this thread you've accused me of being obsessed with blaming conservatives and Fox News. Since you're making the claims, please provide evidence to support it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

This is the second time in this thread you've accused me of being obsessed with blaming conservatives and Fox News. Since you're making the claims, please provide evidence to support it.

All liberals are obsessed with FOX News. FOX News says so.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Far too few to assume "they're all doing it" and model your solution around the minority, lowest common denominator.

13% who admit it.

Even if that was really all of them you don't think 13% of the population could do some serious damage spreading STDs and dropping unwanted kids all over the place?

The solution might be modelled around a minority, but it benefits the majority.

Makes it safer to choose promiscuity and freedom of choice is one of your favourite things, right?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

For people like you it works because you hate sex, you do not have any sexual desire and it is easy to say no.

For the rest of us we have to use birth control and condoms to protect against STD.

Using your logic; people like you are lead around by their crotches like stimulated dogs, staggering around humping thin air.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

13% who admit it...

... or think 2nd base is sex.

Even if that was really all of them you don't think 13% of the population could do some serious damage spreading STDs and dropping unwanted kids all over the place?

The solution might be modelled around a minority, but it benefits the majority.

I disagree. Birth control has only increased in availability over the past 10 years yet the rate of chlamydia has skyrocketed in this time (giving another 10 years since it had begun being reported). While there have been declines in both gonorrhea and syphilis for example; they've been anemic at best and IMO do not justify making birth control more readily available than it is today by funding it with tax dollars. Unless someone can establish for me that child abuse or neglect is on the decline; the idea that people are "dropping unwanted kids all over the place" has more emotional appeal than logical. Otherwise, there's nothing to suggest kids are any more wanted today than they were when birth control was less available.

Makes it safer to choose promiscuity and freedom of choice is one of your favourite things, right?

Others' promiscuity is not my business and doesn't involve me. This means I'd like to maintain the freedom of choosing not to fund others' contraceptives.

[besson3c]

I like sex.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think vegans still have to pay taxes that ultimately help fund programs that facilitate other people buying and eating meat and other animal products. Others' unethical diet is not the vegans' business and doesn't involve them... does this mean they deserve the freedom of choosing not to fund others' consumption of meat and other animal products? Because of this opinion, food assistance should be limited to vegan foods? And consistent with all dietary restrictions no matter how niche or illogical, both philosophical and medical?

What about military.... if others' violence doesn't involve me, should I have the "freedom" of choosing not to fund others' military?

What about any infrastructure? Dedicated off-the-grid anarchists think that public roads, police, firefighters, railroads, schools, and mail/pony express expenses don't involve them. Why should they have to help fund these things for other people?

The whole exercise in organized government and so-called "society" is nothing but a giant boondoggle of anti-freedom forced involvement, preventing me from being at peace with my own strict worldview. Who's fault is that? Answer: everyone's but mine. The only way out of this is that taxes need to be à la carte. I'll only pay the taxes on things I think are "right" (ie things that serve me personally), and everyone else can pick up the tab for things that don't involve me.

[OAW]

^^^^ Well that would be the logical conclusion one would inevitably come to given this "reasoning".

But speaking of "birth control" ....

After an GOP-led, all-male House panel refused to allow her to testify, a young female law school student at Georgetown University eventually gave the following testimony before a Democratic panel in Congress:

Originally Posted by Sandra Fluke

As I have watched national media coverage of this debate, it has been heartbreaking, frankly, to see women's health treated as a political football. When I turn off the TV and look around my campus, I instead see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. You see, Georgetown does not cover contraceptives in its student insurance, although it does cover contraceptives for faculty and staff. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and ask that you hear them.

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn't covered, and had to walk away because she couldn't afford it. Students like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just on Tuesday, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn't afford it any longer.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's not true. Women's health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider allowing even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage directly affect real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. At many schools, it wouldn't be, and under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill, or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are good enough and whose aren't, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they need these prescriptions and whether they're lying about their symptoms. For my firend, and 20 percent of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she'd been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, "It was so painful, I woke up thinking I'd been shot."

Without taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. She's not here this morning. She's in a doctor's office right now. Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As she put it:

"If my body is indeed in early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it."

Now, in addition to facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age -- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis -- she may never be able to be a mom.

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov...ndra_Fluke.pdf

Recently the #1 conservative talk show host in America and right-wing pundit/thought leader who routinely has GOP politicians virtually genuflecting before him and kissing his ring out of deference to and/or fear of his political influence had this to say in response:

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.

Rush Limbaugh blasted for ‘slut’ comment - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

After a firestorm of criticism, El Rushbo doubled-down on his comments with the following:

So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

U.S. News - Limbaugh: Contraception advocate should post online sex videos

Now of course Rush has a history of making inflammatory comments .... racist, sexist, and otherwise. That is nothing new. What's also not new is the typical Rush apologist's mantra .... "Rush is an entertainer ... not a politician." And since his audience is estimated to be approximately 20 million, this naturally begs the question .... why do so many conservatives find such commentary "entertaining" in the first place? I mean it's one thing to not get caught up in "political correctness" ... but it's quite another to relish being offensive to the point where one goes out of their way to do so. The former means one is just being real and plain-spoken. The latter means one just enjoys being an asshole. In any event, my point here is not to criticize Rush's behavior but rather his argument.

Why is it that Rush in particular and conservative media in general continue to frame this as a taxpayer issue ... when this is a regulatory issue that affects private, employer provided insurance plans? Where the premiums are paid for by the employees and employer ... or in this particular situation the students and the university?

Are the regular consumers of conservative media so susceptible to eager to embrace such blatant misinformation that this sort of demonstrably false commentary is routinely met with cheers and applause rather then well-deserved scorn?

OAW

[subego]

While Limbaugh's metaphor is obnoxious and ignorant, he's probably correct Fluke does want taxpayer dollars to fund contraception. I know I do. You can likewise assume many of the people who would staunchly support the regulations in question would support taxpayer dollars to fund contraception.

As an aside, generic birth control pills here in Chicago average about $30 a month. There are lots of different kinds, some of which are more expensive than others, and non-generic (which may have been required for Fluke's friend's condition) will even be more expensive, but I think it's worth mentioning.

As a different aside, as supportive as I am of birth control, it grinds my gears a bit to directly force a bunch of Jesuits to pay for it, even if they hypocritically chose to provide it for faculty and staff.

[besson3c]

One thing that seems to be overshadowed with this issue is that this bill is not just about birth control, but other women's health issues too. For instance, the birth control pills help regulate menstrual cycles which is desirable even if the woman is not sexually active.

The discussion surrounding this issue seems to have gone similarly to the discussion of Planned Parenthood, where the whole abortion thing overshadowed the other services provided by PP (the vast majority of stuff they provide).

It is a shame that wedge issues can create such bad PR that some politicians likely feel compelled to pour out the entire baby with the bathwater (rather than just pieces of the baby).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think vegans still have to pay taxes that ultimately help fund programs that facilitate other people buying and eating meat and other animal products. Others' unethical diet is not the vegans' business and doesn't involve them... does this mean they deserve the freedom of choosing not to fund others' consumption of meat and other animal products? Because of this opinion, food assistance should be limited to vegan foods? And consistent with all dietary restrictions no matter how niche or illogical, both philosophical and medical?

Excellent points, why is the government involved in any of this? More government involvement only increases disenfranchisement while having little to no impact on the targeted progress. Honestly, if government is responsible for subsidizing everyone's contraceptives, what are they not responsible for?

What about military.... if others' violence doesn't involve me, should I have the "freedom" of choosing not to fund others' military?

I think you're comparing apples to freight trains here with due respect. Why is it whenever questions of government involvement in our lives comes up, someone brings up the least argued commission of a governing authority?

What about any infrastructure? Dedicated off-the-grid anarchists think that public roads, police, firefighters, railroads, schools, and mail/pony express expenses don't involve them. Why should they have to help fund these things for other people?

Dedicated, off-the-grid anarchists wouldn't be paying for any of these things.

The whole exercise in organized government and so-called "society" is nothing but a giant boondoggle of anti-freedom forced involvement, preventing me from being at peace with my own strict worldview. Who's fault is that? Answer: everyone's but mine. The only way out of this is that taxes need to be à la carte. I'll only pay the taxes on things I think are "right" (ie things that serve me personally), and everyone else can pick up the tab for things that don't involve me.

I get the tongue-in-cheek here, but there's an astute observation behind this. Not the à la carte taxation point mind you, but the idea that increased government involvement does indeed increase disenfranchisement; one of the many caveats to growing government.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now of course Rush has a history of making inflammatory comments .... racist, sexist, and otherwise. That is nothing new. What's also not new is the typical Rush apologist's mantra .... "Rush is an entertainer ... not a politician." And since his audience is estimated to be approximately 20 million, this naturally begs the question .... why do so many conservatives find such commentary "entertaining" in the first place? I mean it's one thing to not get caught up in "political correctness" ... but it's quite another to relish being offensive to the point where one goes out of their way to do so. The former means one is just being real and plain-spoken. The latter means one just enjoys being an asshole. In any event, my point here is not to criticize Rush's behavior but rather his argument.

After spending most of your time cracking on his behavior, your close rings hollow. In terms of Rush espousing sexist, racist, and inflammatory rhetoric; he doesn't hold a candle to his leftist counterparts you dismiss as exercising their freedom of incendiary rhetoric for its activist merit.

Why is it that Rush in particular and conservative media in general continue to frame this as a taxpayer issue ... when this is a regulatory issue that affects private, employer provided insurance plans? Where the premiums are paid for by the employees and employer ... or in this particular situation the students and the university?

For starters, taxation was the premise of the OP. Otherwise, there's no reason insurers should be required to pick up these additional expenses and pass those expenses on in the form of higher premiums only to be slapped by the government with proposed caps to their, already meager profit margin. Again, consider the cost of your automobile insurance if it were required to keep new tires on your vehicle, oil and gas in your tank, and washer fluid in the reservoir?

Are the regular consumers of conservative media so susceptible to eager to embrace such blatant misinformation that this sort of demonstrably false commentary is routinely met with cheers and applause rather then well-deserved scorn?

No rather, they're highly opposed to the fear-mongering of their leftist counterparts who use the most ridiculous anecdotes available to them in order to motivate their ilk on the cause du jour. The cheers and applause are from those who appreciate the fact that there's a guy out there who's got the balls to say what needs to be said, regardless of whether or not you appreciate the delivery. Not unlike your leftist counterparts, unrivaled in their incendiary rhetoric and the number of hand cymbal-clapping monkeys who adore them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

More government involvement only increases disenfranchisement...

I feel dumb this morning... what do you mean by this?

...while having little to no impact on the targeted progress.

Maybe I was just being "indoctrinated" in history class, but I am under the impression that hunger in America has been greatly impacted over the years, and in fact now we are struggling with the opposite problem. Are you saying that food stamps don't work at reducing hunger?

think you're comparing apples to freight trains here with due respect. Why is it whenever questions of government involvement in our lives comes up, someone brings up the least argued commission of a governing authority?

That's the whole point. To show that a line of reasoning is so heavy-handed that it would invalidate even the "least argued commission of governing authority."

Dedicated, off-the-grid anarchists wouldn't be paying for any of these things.

If they can avoid paying taxes then why can't you?

[Chongo]

BC needs warning labels
Personal Injury Attorney

Since 2004, at least 50 deaths have been reported in women taking Yaz, Yasmin or Ocella. Some of these women were as young as 17. In December of last year, two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committees recommended that the drugs carry stronger warnings about the risks of potentially life-threatening blood clots.[1]
A key ingredient in these drugs can raise blood potassium levels and cause:
Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
Pulmonary Embolism
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)
Death

In addition to those above, The world health org. has oral contraceptives listed as a group 1 carcinogen .

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BC needs warning labels
Personal Injury Attorney

But think of the disenfranchisement this expanding government will result in

J/K, I still don't know what that means in this context.

[The Final Dakar]

Prescription drugs need a warning label? Isn't that why we have these guys called doctors?

[Chongo]

There are those who think doctors are tools of big pharma.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There are those who think doctors are tools of big pharma.

Great, more of the vaguely impersonal assertions.

So, if there are some bad capitalist doctors (or do you if the "some" think it's most or all?), the solution is to deny birth control coverage?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There are those who think doctors are tools of big pharma.

There are those that think birth control is murder. Why beat around the bush?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For starters, taxation was the premise of the OP.

Ok. But something tells me that you are smart enough not to wager your next paycheck that El Rushbo is participating or even lurking in this thread my friend.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Otherwise, there's no reason insurers should be required to pick up these additional expenses and pass those expenses on in the form of higher premiums only to be slapped by the government with proposed caps to their, already meager profit margin. Again, consider the cost of your automobile insurance if it were required to keep new tires on your vehicle, oil and gas in your tank, and washer fluid in the reservoir?

Certainly you make a valid point. Unfortunately, it's just irrelevant to what I was saying.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No rather, they're highly opposed to the fear-mongering of their leftist counterparts who use the most ridiculous anecdotes available to them in order to motivate their ilk on the cause du jour. The cheers and applause are from those who appreciate the fact that there's a guy out there who's got the balls to say what needs to be said, regardless of whether or not you appreciate the delivery. Not unlike your leftist counterparts, unrivaled in their incendiary rhetoric and the number of hand cymbal-clapping monkeys who adore them.

We are both quite capable of turning a phrase in order to deliver some rather clever barbs towards our political adversaries. Even though we typically disagree on most issues, I've always appreciated and had great respect for your way with words and the intellect behind them. So with that in mind ... let's try to put the politics aside (or at least dampen them for a moment ) and focus on the facts surrounding the issue at hand shall we?

My fundamental criticism of Rush's commentary (and similar commentary of conservative media in general) is that they INSIST upon framing this as a taxpayer issue. So the question then becomes ... is the Georgetown Student Health Care Plan taxpayer funded? Or is it not? And if it is NOT taxpayer funded ... then who is this "WE" Rush keeps harping about that has to pay for Ms. Fluke's contraceptives? Does Rush attend night school at Georgetown and participate in its Student Health Care Plan unbeknownst to the general public? I know I pay a considerable amount each year in taxes and I'm fairly certain none of it goes to subsidize Ms. Fluke's or any other Georgetown student's contraceptive usage. You see it would be one thing if Rush had made the argument that the premiums for the Georgetown Student Health Care Plan would go up for everyone who participates in it if "preventative coverage" for medicines/services such as contraceptives were included. That would have been intellectually honest enough to at least form a basis for a rational debate. One might counter that "preventative coverage" for medical checkups at the doctor or teeth cleanings at the dentist don't seem to generate the same level of consternation ... but I digress. My point here is that Rush did NOT make that argument. Instead he has chosen to make the argument that the federal government requiring private healthcare insurers to offer coverage for contraceptives (with an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions) is dipping into the pockets of taxpayers in general ... as opposed to the pockets of the customers of a given insurance company. And that, my friend, is a blatant falsehood. N'est-ce pas?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

As much as I'm loathe to quote him (Since it was brought up):

It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.

If you are on the pill and have zero sex for a month, or engage in intercourse 90 times over that month, the contraception costs... *gasp* the same amount!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If you are on the pill and have zero sex for a month, or engage in intercourse 90 times over that month, the contraception costs... *gasp* the same amount!

Hmm. Maybe what he means is that if she doesn't have sex then it won't be contraception it will be medicine for the condition of being female, so "our" $3000 will therefore be being spent on something other than contraception. But if she does have sex, then suddenly those pills "we" bought become contraception, and it changes the nature of what "we" already committed to buying for her.

[The Final Dakar]

I might buy that if it weren't for the last sentence.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In addition to those above, The world health org. has oral contraceptives listed as a group 1 carcinogen .

This must have been edited in after I responded. So what do you think should be done in response to this?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

As much as I'm loathe to quote him (Since it was brought up):

If you are on the pill and have zero sex for a month, or engage in intercourse 90 times over that month, the contraception costs... *gasp* the same amount!

Are you sure?

You mean birth control pills don't cost more if you have more sex?

Kinda like data usage on my iPhone? My iPhone is a slut though.

[hyteckit]

I think Rush is confuse with birth control pills.

He thinks bill control pills are like Viagra, that only needs to be taken the moment you have sex.

[andi*pandi]

"Joe asks that he must be paid to have erections? What does that make him? It makes him a slut, right? It makes him a gigalo. He wants to be paid to have sex. He’s having so much sex he can’t afford the viagra. He wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay him to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps."

Is this offensive, or is it ok because Joe's a guy and can have all the sex he wants?

[The Final Dakar]

I keep forgetting viagra is apparently covered by a lot of insurance plans, because it just seems so absurd ...and that was before the birth control debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Is this offensive

Not enough, really.

I am now accepting proposals for ways it can be made more offensive.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not enough, really.

I am now accepting proposals for how to make it more offensive.

Add something from a JFK speech.

[subego]

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for your dick.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I keep forgetting viagra is apparently covered by a lot of insurance plans, because it just seems so absurd ...and that was before the birth control debate.

What's even more absurd is that Pfizer advertises Viagara as the cure for "erectile dysfunction", which only applies to sexual activity. In particular, the Wikipedia page on Viagra says that it does have another use in a particular rare type of hypertension, but then Pfizer decided to market the same drug as "Revatio" when used to treat that illness. So there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Viagara is specifically marketed and prescribed to enable men to have sex, with no benefit other than curing erectile dysfunction.

However, when the debate over drugs to treat sexual conditions switches to women's issues, people instantly start to question the woman's real motives for wanting the drugs. Pharmacists ask these young women why they need the drug, even if they have a prescription, and have a valid medical reason for it. How is that fair?

Why the double standard? Probably because the people who make these rules are predominantly Male.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok. But something tells me that you are smart enough not to wager your next paycheck that El Rushbo is participating or even lurking in this thread my friend.

You're missing a great deal here in the snippets OAW. It's a provision of Obamacare under the HHS that will mandate insurers pick up the tab for these services and will partially subsidize/incentivize those insurers in a feeble attempt to offset those increased expenditures. Obamacare carries with it employer mandates for coverage and related minimum coverage requirements. Under Obamacare you can no longer make the claim of what taxpayers are and are not on the hook for -- that cat's out of the bag my friend. We're all subsidizing it and every mandate that accompanies it, yes including "preventive health services". You can't expect Rush Limbaugh to address every aspect of leftist deceit and trickery in every dissertation, particularly when each lie is impregnated with several more.

Otherwise, the worst part of this, and where you might have an argument against the feigned outrage of some on the right; is that we've already been subsidizing contraception through PP.

With regard to Fluke; if you attend Georgetown @ $60k per year for example, but cannot afford your own birth control, we're subsidizing your education and your birth control. A go at community college might free up some funds for the extremely expensive birth control she's using, as some have estimated; bloated by several hundred percent. I wonder about Fluke though, did she not know birth control isn't covered at Georgetown when she enrolled or did she willingly patronize the institution in an attempt to change it to her liking? Otherwise, you're going to get Catholic teaching and direction at a Catholic institution. This whole thing is about as disingenuous as it gets.

Certainly you make a valid point. Unfortunately, it's just irrelevant to what I was saying.

Unfortunately OAW, it speaks to precisely why these measures are so contentious; we're all paying for them. Again, you can't have it both ways man, that cat's out of the bag now.

We are both quite capable of turning a phrase in order to deliver some rather clever barbs towards our political adversaries. Even though we typically disagree on most issues, I've always appreciated and had great respect for your way with words and the intellect behind them. So with that in mind ... let's try to put the politics aside (or at least dampen them for a moment ) and focus on the facts surrounding the issue at hand shall we?

Fair enough OAW and you know I got nothing, but love for ya... and political disagreement.

My fundamental criticism of Rush's commentary (and similar commentary of conservative media in general) is that they INSIST upon framing this as a taxpayer issue.

Because it is any way you slice it, but I'll give you part of the argument. For me personally it's neither a woman's rights issue nor a taxpayers issue, it's a religious freedoms issue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I feel dumb this morning... what do you mean by this?

Each time you expand government to cover this provision or that, you're doing so at the distress, financially or otherwise, of someone else. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question where this responsibility begins and ends.

Maybe I was just being "indoctrinated" in history class, but I am under the impression that hunger in America has been greatly impacted over the years, and in fact now we are struggling with the opposite problem. Are you saying that food stamps don't work at reducing hunger?

No, food works at reducing hunger. When we attempt to cure hunger abroad, we're doing so with grains and rice, not oreo cookies, soda, and multiple times the daily allowance of protein and sugars.

That's the whole point. To show that a line of reasoning is so heavy-handed that it would invalidate even the "least argued commission of governing authority."

Your point was missed on me. I think the simple answer is that your argument was a false dilemma.

If they can avoid paying taxes then why can't you?

Why should I? I have no desire to be off the grid and I'm not a dedicated anarchist. Another false dilemma.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What's even more absurd is that Pfizer advertises Viagara as the cure for "erectile dysfunction", which only applies to sexual activity. In particular, the Wikipedia page on Viagra says that it does have another use in a particular rare type of hypertension, but then Pfizer decided to market the same drug as "Revatio" when used to treat that illness. So there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Viagara is specifically marketed and prescribed to enable men to have sex, with no benefit other than curing erectile dysfunction.

However, when the debate over drugs to treat sexual conditions switches to women's issues, people instantly start to question the woman's real motives for wanting the drugs. Pharmacists ask these young women why they need the drug, even if they have a prescription, and have a valid medical reason for it. How is that fair?

Why the double standard? Probably because the people who make these rules are predominantly Male.

For what it's worth, I'm opposed to this as well. It's currently being used by insurers as a means of attracting patronage and I'd be willing to bet other insureds are helping pick up the tab. Though, it's in keeping with free market principles and they should be allowed to if they so choose. However, if it ever becomes part of our laws, mandated and overseen by the HHS -- I'll have a real problem with it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm guessing, at the heart of it, there must be a poll somewhere that says the usual 'guarnteed voter bloc' of women voters isn't as jazzed on Obama as they were during the Hopey-Changey days of 2008, and so along comes: "What scare tactic can we dredge up to scare the panties off all these poor poor helpless victims and get more of them back in our camp?"

Nailed it!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm guessing, at the heart of it, there must be a poll somewhere that says the usual 'guarnteed voter bloc' of women voters isn't as jazzed on Obama as they were during the Hopey-Changey days of 2008, and so along comes: "What scare tactic can we dredge up to scare the panties off all these poor poor helpless victims and get more of them back in our camp?"

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nailed it!

This is why, More people identify as pro life than pro choice.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Far too few to assume "they're all doing it" and model your solution around the minority, lowest common denominator.

0.0001% is good enough for you to throw global warming out the window, but suddenly 13% is too small.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

0.0001% is good enough for you to throw global warming out the window, but suddenly 13% is too small.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

0.0001% is good enough for you to throw global warming out the window, but suddenly 13% is too small.

It seems you've run clean out of material on both topics. You're in good company as always.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With regard to Fluke; if you attend Georgetown @ $60k per year for example, but cannot afford your own birth control, we're subsidizing your education and your birth control. A go at community college might free up some funds for the extremely expensive birth control she's using, as some have estimated; bloated by several hundred percent. I wonder about Fluke though, did she not know birth control isn't covered at Georgetown when she enrolled or did she willingly patronize the institution in an attempt to change it to her liking? Otherwise, you're going to get Catholic teaching and direction at a Catholic institution. This whole thing is about as disingenuous as it gets. .

This is why I have a hard time feeling sorry for Fluke. She trotted herself out into the limelight as part of a disingenuous ploy to curry sympathy from people for something isn't really worthy of sympathy. If she wants to be unmarried and have sex, she can pay for it like everyone else. There are options that would require her to pay a lot less, or ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

No one is depriving her of ANY right, so if she wants to put her sex life up as an example, she can't be surprised when her lack of discretion points a target on her back.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It would be different if she was married and wanted free birth control?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, if there are some bad capitalist doctors (or do you if the "some" think it's most or all?), the solution is to deny birth control coverage?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

In addition to those above, The world health org. has oral contraceptives listed as a group 1 carcinogen .

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This must have been edited in after I responded. So what do you think should be done in response to this?

Any answers, Chongo?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This is why, More people identify as pro life than pro choice.

...one time in 15 years. And it doesn't seem to be a clear trend, either.