Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Limbaugh and Obama: BFF's?

Limbaugh and Obama: BFF's?
Thread Tools
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 12:10 PM
 
Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and all that. Unless you're living under a rock, you know about his latest controversial comments. And that Obama has decided to step into the issue directly.

The thing is this isn't the first time Obama has singled out Limbaugh. Back in 2009, before the election that tilted the House to GOP control, he aggressively tried to push his opinion that the real policy leadership in the GOP was coming from Limbaugh.

Painting Limbaugh as GOP's leader - Los Angeles Times

I think their fortunes are joined more than anyone thinks. Obama understands that Limbaugh is one of the boogeymen on the Right that could convince otherwise complacent Liberals to come out and vote in the election. It doesn't hurt that the whole issue is about contraception, which is another issue that can bring complacent Liberals to the polls. (Contraception may turn out to be a wedge issue for Obama like Gay Marriage was for Bush in 2004.) But make no mistake: Obama and the Democrats are going out of their way to portray the GOP as an out-of-control party driven by radical right-wing elements, with Limbaugh as Exhibit A. As long as Limbaugh keeps saying controversial stuff, Obama will remind us about it.

So why doesn't Limbaugh just shut up? I think it's because he doesn't care who wins elections, he only cares about his ratings. And he is smart enough to know that his ratings will be higher under a second Obama administration than they would be under President Romney or Gingrich or (I can't believe I'm writing this!) President Santorum. Plus, he can say whatever he wants without ever having to be accountable for what he says -- he can take credit when he happens to be right and pays no consequences when he's wrong. It's in his best interest to act as if he is the only real voice speaking for Conservatives, even if it ultimately damages the Republican Party, because he does better when there are Socialists in power to rail against.

So, if Obama wins a second term, should he send Limbaugh a gift basket full of OxyContin?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
But make no mistake: Obama and the Democrats are going out of their way to portray the GOP as an out-of-control party driven by radical right-wing elements, with Limbaugh as Exhibit A. As long as Limbaugh keeps saying controversial stuff, Obama will remind us about it.
..and that's different than what? Using the "radical right-wing" and "extreme" labels been their plan since Reagan campaigned for office, and it really hasn't had all that much success. How it work out when that was their major strategy for the mid-term elections? Not so good....

So why doesn't Limbaugh just shut up? I think it's because he doesn't care who wins elections, he only cares about his ratings.
I think it's because he believes what he says, and isn't kowtowing to anyone to speak his mind. Limbaugh gets just about the same ratings regardless of whether there's a Republican or Democrat in office. His job is to entertain and inform. As long as he's doing that his way, he'll get ratings. His job isn't to get any particular party or candidate elected.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
So why doesn't Limbaugh just shut up?
Because he gets paid to NOT shut up.


Or, to put it in Upton Sinclair's words:
‎"It is remarkably difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Seriously, it is so hard to understand that all this is entertainment first, and politics only last.

-t
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2012, 02:54 PM
 
If they're BFFs, we need to come up with a BFF name.

Should it be "Limbama" or "Obamaugh"?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
But make no mistake: Obama and the Democrats are going out of their way to portray the GOP as an out-of-control party driven by radical right-wing elements, with Limbaugh as Exhibit A. As long as Limbaugh keeps saying controversial stuff, Obama will remind us about it.
I'd venture to say that President Obama and the Dems don't have to go out of their way at all. The GOP is portraying itself to be "an out-of-control party driven by radical right-wing elements" just fine all on its own. What we see happening is a prime example of this ....

"If your opponent is digging himself into a hole, don't stop him. Just stand back and give him plenty of room to keep digging."

Originally Posted by Dork
So why doesn't Limbaugh just shut up? I think it's because he doesn't care who wins elections, he only cares about his ratings. And he is smart enough to know that his ratings will be higher under a second Obama administration than they would be under President Romney or Gingrich or (I can't believe I'm writing this!) President Santorum.
Exactly.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 5, 2012 at 05:06 PM. )
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
So, if Obama wins a second term, should he send Limbaugh a gift basket full of OxyContin?
Rush wants Obama to win, it gives him four more years worth of material. He makes more money and has more influence when a Dem is in office.

It's a scam, you've been played, even he doesn't believe in 80% of what he says, but "liberals" sure do love reacting to him and being led around by the nose. The hard Right sees him as "their voice", and hard Left views him as pure corporate evil, and the Middle sits and watches it all like spectators at a tennis match. The louder he can make people scream, the more money he makes.

Hell, the times I've listened to him I thought he was trying too hard, making things too obvious, but I guess he knows what he's doing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2012, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Rush wants Obama to win, it gives him four more years worth of material. He makes more money and has more influence when a Dem is in office.
Tucker Carlson once said the same thing to Jon Stewart: that Stewart would want the Republicans to win because it means more comedy material for them. I wasn't convinced by that concept then, and I'm less convinced of it now.

That's not to say Limbaugh doesn't deliberately lie, because he does. He knows Fluke's testimony wasn't "she can't afford birth control because she fncks so much." But he is against mandating birth control coverage in health insurance plans, and he will tell any lie necessary to block that mandate.

Limbaugh rants right-wing hysteria because he actually believes it. We know this by watching how reluctant and half-assed his apology is.

Apparently today, he said he was sorry because name-calling reduces him to the level of the Democrats. He is not sorry. He is saying the bare minimum because his network is breathing down his neck over lost advertisers. Yet today, Limbaugh attacked those advertisers, which is just digging the hole even deeper.

BTW, Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital, which is why Romney has refused to make much of a statement about the controversy. But it's no coincidence that both Romney and Limbaugh uttered the exact same "poor choice of words" excuse. They're both reading from the same playbook written by Bain about how to manage the controversy. But Limbaugh just can't keep to the script.

Beck lost his show over this kind of thing. I think it would be awesome if Limbaugh did too, but I don't have my hopes up.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 09:19 AM
 
But how many have actually listened to Flukes testimony? You sure haven't heard anything but snippets on the MSM in between the rants of the libs. Pelosi and the Dems are trying to change the discussion away from the mandate and forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
But how many have actually listened to Flukes testimony? You sure haven't heard anything but snippets on the MSM in between the rants of the libs. Pelosi and the Dems are trying to change the discussion away from the mandate and forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception.
You don't have to listen to it. The full transcript is easily obtainable. And nowhere did her testimony indicate anything about her "having so much sex that she can't afford birth control".

OAW
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 08:14 PM
 
Limbaugh has now lost 26 advertisers, most of those after he "apologized." It's obvious that no one thinks he is sincere.

EDIT: looks like it's now 35 lost advertisers. Maybe Limbaugh will be joining Beck after all.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Mar 6, 2012 at 09:24 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You don't have to listen to it. The full transcript is easily obtainable.
LOL, she said:

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
She's either a liar or a complete idiot. You can get contraception much cheaper.

Birthcontrolbuzz shows that most birth control pills (they have something like a dozen different brands listed!) run about $20/month, or $250/year. (Planned Parenthood concurs, incidentally.) A single IUD (good for up to five years!) sells for about $200, or $50/year. One "Implanon" (Norplant-style stick, which is good for up to three years) and the most-effective female contraception available short of sterilization with a less than 1% failure rate is $233.20, or $77/year.
Limbaugh Is Right Folks in [Market-Ticker]

-t
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
But how many have actually listened to Flukes testimony? You sure haven't heard anything but snippets on the MSM in between the rants of the libs. Pelosi and the Dems are trying to change the discussion away from the mandate and forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception.
I'm curious; have *you* actually listened to her testimony?

One of the examples offered by Fluke is of a friend of her's who has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries and that many religious institution insurance plans won't cover such treatment. Her friend's claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy rather than to treat her illness, despite verification from her doctor.

Do you think a religious institution should have the right to deny medical treatment on religious grounds?
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Mar 6, 2012 at 10:14 PM. )
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2012, 10:22 PM
 
You can't control polycystic ovarian syndrome with a IUD. You can't control severe PMS with a IUD.

The pill costs between $15-$50 a month. You can be stuck with an expensive brand if that's all that your system can take without complications. $3000 sounds high, but $2000 over three years is certainly possible.

If this discussion were about Viagra, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Viagra, which has been covered by all medical plans for years. If you were a Catholic man working for a Catholic institution, you could get your employer-paid Viagra prescription without a single cross word being uttered. This entire "issue" is a misogynist crusade.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You can't control polycystic ovarian syndrome with a IUD. You can't control severe PMS with a IUD.

The pill costs between $15-$50 a month. You can be stuck with an expensive brand if that's all that your system can take without complications. $3000 sounds high, but $2000 over three years is certainly possible.

If this discussion were about Viagra, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Viagra, which has been covered by all medical plans for years. If you were a Catholic man working for a Catholic institution, you could get your employer-paid Viagra prescription without a single cross word being uttered. This entire "issue" is a misogynist crusade.
And that right there is the bottom line.

OAW
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 01:05 AM
 
This was probably a much simpler topic for the conservatives when Rush made it out to be just about some Catholic school girls who wanted to have a lot of sex.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 01:09 AM
 
What Catholic school girl doesn't want to have lots of sex?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
If this discussion were about Viagra, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Viagra, which has been covered by all medical plans for years. If you were a Catholic man working for a Catholic institution, you could get your employer-paid Viagra prescription without a single cross word being uttered. This entire "issue" is a misogynist crusade.
It's a question of morals. Catholics aren't against having sex for men or women. I'm guessing if a woman needed an operation because she had a deformity that made sex difficult, that such an operation would be covered. What they won't do is pay to make it easier for people to engage in behavior the church teaches against. That seems like a pretty clear case of them exercising their first amendment rights, which they should be allowed to do.

Freedom means having the freedom to choose - on all sides. If you don't like the insurance an employer offers, go out and get your own. If an employer's insurance sucks, then that will hurt them in the competitive job market and they will lose qualified people who might otherwise had chosen them as an employer. The idea that the federal government can tell an employer which things HAVE to be covered doesn't seem like anything that our founders would have backed.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 08:40 AM
 
Look... you don't use the pill to treat ovarian cysts longterm. A one-year prescription as treatment for ovarian cysts is not necessary. You can bet if it's being used for more than a couple of cycles, it's a Fluke. There is no $2k expenditure, there is no $3k expenditure. The pill as necessary to treat physical conditions is often used as a way around contraception bans and there's no reason the religious institution needs to succumb to the feeble attempts at secularizing it so an activist can make the cover of Vanity Fair. Fluke is a 30 year old female activist who found out about the policy @ Georgetown and enrolled with the specific intention of challenging this policy. Would it have been kinder had Rush referred to her as a dumbass or should he have unleashed something more along the lines of what Maher has said of Palin and Bachmann?

This feigned outrage is dishonest to the core. Abortion has become less popular, exploit the contraception battle to perpetuate the narrative of the evil, woman-hating right wing.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Look... you don't use the pill to treat ovarian cysts longterm.
That's not what the Mayo Clinic says.
Polycystic ovary syndrome: Treatments and drugs - MayoClinic.com
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2012, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Would it have been kinder had Rush referred to her as a dumbass or should he have unleashed something more along the lines of what Maher has said of Palin and Bachmann?
Are you really asking whether dumbass is more acceptable than whore?

Also, for the record, Maher is an insufferable, misogynist pig.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This feigned outrage is dishonest to the core. Abortion has become less popular, exploit the contraception battle to perpetuate the narrative of the evil, woman-hating right wing.
Yeah, it's telling how Democrats checked their extensive list of the only issues women care about. Here's a sneak peak at it:

1. Aborshuns
2. condums
3.



This time around, in a masterful stroke of wisdom, Obama surprised his consultants on the 'how do we scare the panties off all those helpless victim women so they vote for us' panel by doing the unprecedented. He actually skipped past issue number 1.... alllllllll the way down the list..... to issue number 2, and said, "I've got it! Let's make up a crisis about this one!"

There were probably audible gasps of shock as the sheer audacity of the plan, but pretty soon everyone in the room was nodding heads and agreeing that it was simply brilliant. So simple, so wise, such a grand plan- why hadn't anyone ever thought of it before? Skip down the list... all the way to number 2,and invent a crisis around that. Simply amazing stuff, but then, that's why he's the messiah and they aren't.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 08:26 AM
 
You guys are missing the point of why I started the thread. It's not about contraception (we have another thread for that), or the fact that Limbaugh says crazy stuff. It's the fact that Obama has been trying to establish Rush as the mouthpiece of the Republican party (if not its' ideological head) for his entire presidency, and Rush (and the other gentlemen running for President) are doing the job much better in the last two weeks than Obama ever could alone.

This Guy at Politico understands what a gift Rush has given Obama with his comments, But I would take it two steps further:

- The position that Limbaugh is the ideological leader of the GOP gains some traction when you listen to what the candidates are saying about the issue. They are trying to downplay it by saying that "Rush is just an entertainer" or "I wouldn't have said what he said". But the thing they need to say is "Rush's words are hurting the Conservative cause, and he was wrong to say those things about Fluke." None of the Republican candidates have the balls to condemn Limbaugh in strong language (and risk pissing off the Dittoheads). If they can't take on a drug addict, how can they take on Ahmedinajad?

- I still contend that Rush does better when Democrats are in office, and he has more to whine against. Who would listen to him if he has nothing to complain about? His first priority is calling attention to himself, not furthering the GOP. He will do whatever it takes to call attention to himself, even if it knocks the GOP down a few pegs in the process, and further energizes the folks on the Left to come together.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It shows several treatment options available, those morally objectionable to the Catholic Institution they willfully joined are not the only option.

Otherwise, does the Mayo Clinic offer a 28-day supply of birth control for $9? Walmart and Target do.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It shows several treatment options available, those morally objectionable to the Catholic Institution they willfully joined are not the only option.
If the patient's goal as verified and prescribed by their doctor is medicinal and not for birth control, there should be no moral objection by the religion. One should be able to follow the medical advice of their doctor rather than the medical advice of their school's administration.

If there were a Jehovah's Witness school and it refused to cover the cost of a student's blood transfusion, would you support that as well? Or, what about any of these groups that shun *any* medical treatment? Religious groups that reject medical treatment in favor of prayer
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 11:13 AM
 
I personally have no problem with employers or insurance companies refusing to cover the cost of ANYTHING they where willing to give advance notice of.

Again, if an employer offers sucky insurance and their competition does not, then the employer offering the lesser insurance will be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting quality employees, and their products or services will suffer as a result.

Also, if something is not covered, there's no reason why a third party can't come up with a supplemental insurance plan to cover things your primary plan does not.

I'm not sure I get the sense of entitlement that's apparent here. Many employers offer NO insurance. Again, the reason many employers do offer it is to be competitive in regards to hard working, or skilled staff. Our founders never intended for preventive health care to be free, or they would have made that clear at the outset.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Again, if an employer offers sucky insurance and their competition does not, then the employer offering the lesser insurance will be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting quality employees, and their products or services will suffer as a result.
In this economy? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Many employers offer NO insurance.
Full-time jobs? Never heard of one so far.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
In this economy? I don't think so.
So you are saying that people right now who have jobs should just be glad to be gainfully employed, and should stop complaining about the extent their employers give them benefits?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So you are saying that people right now who have jobs should just be glad to be gainfully employed, and should stop complaining about the extent their employers give them benefits?
That is the way it is, but I was referring to an unemployed person turning down a job because the benefits aren't good enough.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That is the way it is, but I was referring to an unemployed person turning down a job because the benefits aren't good enough.
Let's hope that Obama is wrong and that we aren't currently doing as good as we can, and we get back to the point where skilled and valuable employees can shop jobs based on benefits. Some still do. My wife is doing that right now. She's interviewing some place that has better benefits, though it IS in the health care industry.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 12:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
1. Aborshuns
2. condums
3.
I think "being called a slut" belongs on that list.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think "being called a slut" belongs on that list.
I think the revised list has this covered:

DEMOCRAT PARTY WOMENS ISSUES LIST (revised 3/2012)
1. Aborshuns
2. condums
3. Guys allowed to say stuff on radio
4. severe PMS
5. ovaries is expeansive dizeaze
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 01:23 PM
 
DemLOL CrATS?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 01:27 PM
 
^ now that made me laugh! Awesome.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
If the patient's goal as verified and prescribed by their doctor is medicinal and not for birth control, there should be no moral objection by the religion. One should be able to follow the medical advice of their doctor rather than the medical advice of their school's administration.

If there were a Jehovah's Witness school and it refused to cover the cost of a student's blood transfusion, would you support that as well? Or, what about any of these groups that shun *any* medical treatment? Religious groups that reject medical treatment in favor of prayer
What about them? Would I support what exactly? You act as if something is being denied these individuals. We're supposed to somehow reach out and stop people from making every possible, questionable decision they're faced with and relieving them of the consequences of their choices when it doesn't work. I didn't support them in their choice to go to a Jehovah's Witness school. I don't support those opting out of all medical treatments. I didn't support Fluke going to Georgetown and had I known I was helping fund it, damn sure wouldn't have supported it. What am I required to support again? The more folks try to stretch this into a woman's rights issue and then try to pin anyone in disagreement into claiming they hate women, the more ridiculous it gets IMO.

She opted for a Catholic institution that was apparently clear in their doctrine. She is not being denied the necessary medical care for her PCOS and she's not being denied access to birth control. For all I know, she can get a 28-day supply of birth control at Walmart for $9, drop off a semester's payment of $30k at the Georgetown administrative office, and get the necessary medical care in accordance with the institution she otherwise sought instruction from. Common sense would have it no more complicated than that, but you see... there's no activism in that. But what about those with peanut allergies who get sick vending peanuts at football games? What about the guy with vertigo working the water tower? They're complicated people of course and no, I don't always support them. Neither do you.

This is among the most blatant abuses of a cause du jour as I've seen to date.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2012, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I personally have no problem with employers or insurance companies refusing to cover the cost of ANYTHING they where willing to give advance notice of.

Again, if an employer offers sucky insurance and their competition does not, then the employer offering the lesser insurance will be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting quality employees, and their products or services will suffer as a result.
Except, we aren't talking about an employer here, and students don't have the same levels of options as employees do. Of course, with the current state of the economy, even employees don't have much choice.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not sure I get the sense of entitlement that's apparent here.
I don't know about in the US, but here in socialist Canada, health plans provided by employer or school aren't free; the employee or student almost always pays a proportion of the plan. The sense of entitlement, at least for me, comes from a desire to get what you paid for.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Our founders never intended for preventive health care to be free, or they would have made that clear at the outset.
Your founders also never intended for people to be able to drive cars or fly airplanes.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Mar 8, 2012 at 11:08 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2012, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Except, we aren't talking about an employer here, and students don't have the same levels of options as employees do. Of course, with the current state of the economy, even employees don't have much choice.
eBuddy covered this above.

I don't know about in the US, but here in socialist Canada, health plans provided by employer or school aren't free; the employee or student almost always pays a proportion of the plan. The sense of entitlement, at least for me, comes from a desire to get what you paid for.
Stop paying for it if it doesn't have value, and find something that does. If you can't, then maybe you can't "get what you paid for" for what you are willing to pay. You aren't entitled to such a thing.

Your founders also never intended for people to be able to drive cars or fly airplanes.
Cars and planes did not exist at the time of our founding. Doctors and medicine did however.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2012, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Stop paying for it if it doesn't have value, and find something that does. If you can't, then maybe you can't "get what you paid for" for what you are willing to pay.
This is rarely an option with employer/institution provided insurance. In my experience, once the employer/institution is enrolled, participation is mandatory, unless you have a spouse with a different plan.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Cars and planes did not exist at the time of our founding. Doctors and medicine did however.
Exactly, the ability to make an insurance industry profitable did not exist at the time of your founding. In order for insurance to work, the insurance company needs to be able to spread the risk across *a lot* of people, and for that you need an efficient communications network that simply did not exist back then, possibly making the concept of insurance difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of. Your Founders were not omniscient.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2012, 07:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
This is rarely an option with employer/institution provided insurance. In my experience, once the employer/institution is enrolled, participation is mandatory, unless you have a spouse with a different plan.
I've never had an employer mandate that you HAVE to enroll in their insurance plan. It saves them money if you don't. I've always had it as an option. Always.

Exactly, the ability to make an insurance industry profitable did not exist at the time of your founding.
People just paid for their own care, or didn't get it. There was no mandate at the time of our founders that the care be provided free. Again, doctors and medicine were around a long time before our nation was founded, and it was no secret that they could both prolong life and increase it's quality. You where either self sufficient or you did without.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2012, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
People just paid for their own care, or didn't get it. There was no mandate at the time of our founders that the care be provided free. Again, doctors and medicine were around a long time before our nation was founded, and it was no secret that they could both prolong life and increase it's quality. You where either self sufficient or you did without.
And, now, in the modern age, we have the means to provide care for all citizens, not just the few who can afford it.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2012, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
And, now, in the modern age, we have the means to provide care for all citizens, not just the few who can afford it.
No, we don't. WE STILL can't afford it.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 07:40 PM
 
141 advertisers have dropped Limbaugh. The free market at work.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2012, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, we don't. WE STILL can't afford it.
The modern capability I'm speaking about is with respect to logistics, not money.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2012, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, we don't. WE STILL can't afford it.
And, with private insurance companies, we absolutely *can* afford it (other wise, these companies wouldn't be so insanely profitable). You're making the mistake of convoluting the insurance industry with universal health care.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,