Sandra Fluke Is An Ignornat Slut

[heckofajobbrownie]

Contraception is a procedure?

Do you mean abortion?

 

 

WSS

 

Use "preventative care" instead.

 

As in, how many right wingers out there are screaming about childhood immunizations and colonoscopies and mammograms being part of insurance coverage?

 

"If you want to have kids and get them immunized from dead diseases, why should I pay for it?"

 

Well, you don't hear that.

[Taco918]

i read your quibbles, and i er get that yur dearest Fluke has mede herself a public figure as well. so this makes her a target also. we can see that YOU have a DOUBLE Standard and that makes you just as big of a HYPOCRITE like the rest of the left winged media.

 

you should rethink yur position and stop acting like a dimwit who cannot think for themselves.

 

here is a tissue so you can wipe yur nose.

 

Oh so Fluke is a public figure? I stay up to date with current affairs and before Rush's comments I've never heard of Fluke before. She's in the public realm now BECAUSE of Rush's ignorant statements. Before Rush, she was your run of the mill college student. After Rush, she has her name plastered all over the media. If you're trying to insinuate that her testifying before Congress makes her a public figure then you're out of your damn mind. Do you know how many people have testified before Congress? Can you name all of them off the top of your head? Until you can do so I'm going to believe, just like every other rational human being with even the slightest semblance of knowledge of our society, that Fluke is a private citizen. The only one acting like a dimwit is you my friend.

 

Oh and keep in mind, this entire controversy is a result of the right wing media, which Rush is apart of. If Rush would've had some common decency, none of this would have happened. Blame the left wing media all you want but the responsibility for all of this lies solely on Rush.

[Mr. T]

Every other industrialized country covers birth control for women. This isn't even an issue in other countries. Many insurance companies in America already cover birth control for women. They're not going to take a hit on profit because they'll pass on the cost of the birth control to the customer.

 

And again, T, the word you're looking for is "moot" not "mute."

 

 

Feeling granduer over the use of the wrong word?

 

Anyways back to topic; Why should we as in the United States succumb to every demand that all of the other socialist countries have by offering every little perk whether it be birth control to free hearing exams? Shouldn't some of these responsibilities be up to the individual when they purchase health insurance? If someone wants any of these items covered then they should have to pay for the coverage. If a company presents a health care insurance policy that their employees can buy into as a group that alone is a good benefit to have. It is not up to the government to demand what level of coverage is allowed. It is not up to the US government to make demands that will go against religious organizations either.

 

We have laws that protect us citizens from tyranny and we need to follow them.

[Kosar_For_President]

It is not up to the US government to make demands that will go against religious organizations either.

 

Guantanamo Bay?

[heckofajobbrownie]

T, you keep making these statements as if they're true. Well, you know what? It is up to the government to regulate the health insurance market. When we decide that it's in the public interest to screen for things like breast cancer, or to immunize children against whooping cough and measles and hepatitis, or to keep insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick, or to discriminate against people with pre-exisiting conditions, you need government to do that. No other entity is going to do that. Because there is no functioning "free market" for health care. Sadly, we don't live in libertarian fantasy land.

 

If you don't think birth control pills are something that should be covered by all plans despite evidence that this is best for women's health and for lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies and for saving taxpayer money in the long run, then go ahead and make that argument. But to suddenly be stunned by the reality of a government that regulates the health insurance market, and to imagine that if we extend birth control coverage to some plans that don't already cover birth control is something bizarre and out of the ordinary, that just shows you were born yesterday.

 

Again, nobody made a peep when they've announced regulations or mandates for other procedures, or other forms preventative care, over the past few decades. So just admit it - you think this is about sluts fucking for pleasure, and you don't like the idea of sluts getting to fuck for pleasure. The rest of us already know that this is what you're mad at because it's clear from the posts in here, and the reaction to the Limbaugh rant. You're still upset that the sexual revolution didn't go your way.

 

But don't try to pretend this is about your liberty. It's not.

[Westside Steve]

I'm just suggesting that this is not how it works in the real world, so why pretend it does in here? In the real world there are procedures required of insurance companies. Funny that among all the procedures that are required, contraception is the only one the right has a problem with.

 

Hmm. I wonder why that is.

Well you changed the discussion from what happens in the real world here in the us, Amang different insurance carriers. You certainly arent suggesting that there aren't many different plans that cover many different procedures are you?

But I see from a post down the road from here a bit that what you actually mean is among countries that have socialized medicine.

Could be.

But we were disguising the USA where abortion was illegal and immoral up until a few years back.

And up until a short time ago was a procedure that you could not be forced to underwrite if you were morally or religiously opposed.

So now for most people that has changed. I understand that. Because of that the rights the minority used to have are erased.

 

I wonder if we be having this discussion and there were still a draft?

Would anyone be arguing that the rights of conscientious objectors be repealed?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Oh so Fluke is a public figure? I stay up to date with current affairs and before Rush's comments I've never heard of Fluke before. She's in the public realm now BECAUSE of Rush's ignorant statements. Before Rush, she was your run of the mill college student. After Rush, she has her name plastered all over the media. If you're trying to insinuate that her testifying before Congress makes her a public figure then you're out of your damn mind.

If she weren't in the public arena how did he know who she was?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Come on, fellas. Parsing whether or not she a public figure is sort of pointless. She's not a public figure, but she's also open to criticism if she wants to testify before Congress. She injected herself into a highly visible national debate. You can't do that and then act surprised that other people take issue with it. That's the game.

 

But it's all irrelevant in terms of what Rush said. And here's what the people on the right just don't seem to get - if you want to disagree with what she said, or even make fun of her, then go ahead. But this is why Don Imus got in trouble, and this is why Rush is in trouble: because you look like a sexist prick when you go after a young woman just because she was a woman. Because lots of women, and men, and lots of people who have sisters and daughters, see a smart, put-together law student standing up before Congress, putting herself out there - and whether you agree with her or not, like a professional - and making her case. And what did she get for that? A big loudmouth went on the radio and called her a slut and a prostitute and told her to make him some sex tapes.

 

Because no matter what you do, or achieve, or how you present yourself, it's never good enough for certain assholes who don't want to treat you as an equal, who want to keep you where you were.

 

If you can't get why that pisses people off, why that's a really ugly sentiment, then God bless you.

[calfoxwc]

Heck, you ignorantly compare contraceptives with diseases? Then you ignore, again, Mahr's nasty stuff about Palin....

\

but are upset at the same about Fluke?

 

Really ? And you disagree with what I say about you liberals constantly contradicting yourselves? LOL

 

REALLY?

 

REALLY FREAKIN REALLY? I'm starting to think you really are sold out to the left. Get paid for it much?

 

You really are a sad case here. Perhaps you'd fit in better on moveonupObamao'sleg.orgy.

 

If you do get all pouty again, and leave again, I won't miss your bigoted, partisan arrogant crap.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, you're just sad. We're here in a thread that you started called "Sandra Fluke is an ignorant slut." So, obviously you really, really hate when women are called sluts for no good reason.

 

So, much like Bunker, listening to you act like you're mad at someone for saying sexist things, and then saying it's hypocritical that the left won't comment on something Maher said a year ago, is the height of hypocrisy.

 

Nobody in here on the left would defend Maher calling Palin a cunt. It also happened a year ago, and it has nothing to do with what Rush said. You keep bringing it up to divert the attention from Rush.

 

If you're so damn mad about what Maher said, and you think it's sexist, you've had almost a week to call out Rush's sexist comments, and about someone who isn't a national political figure. So show me where you've addressed what Rush said in these last six pages. Except that you can't because you haven't done that. You've called her sexist names. So save us your bullshit about caring about "nasty stuff" hurled at women. You're a disgusting partisan who obviously couldn't give a rat's ass about civility, and prove it in here every day.

 

PS - Lots of women take birth control for medical reasons, you ignorant old man.

[Westside Steve]

While we are in all honesty mode, let's stop pretending that we give a shit about sexist or racist remarks when they're made about the other side.

And let's not pretend this is about women's rights.

And let's not pretend that anyone is denying this dame contraception.

Obama wanted to pick a fight with religious conservatives.

That part icular minority isn't on the preferred list.

The national media is glad as usual to carry his water.

Bigotry is only acceptable if you're on the left.

But this isn't about bigotry is it?

This broad is just a political hack wanna be and this is a campaign ploy.

And it's a good one.

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

Heck, you ignorantly compare contraceptives with diseases?

 

Cal did I just read this right?

[Kosar_For_President]

yur a slave to da media and that yur get excited over nuttin.

 

This is the funniest shit I've read all week. Hypocrisy is the best.

[Mr. T]

T, you keep making these statements as if they're true. Well, you know what? It is up to the government to regulate the health insurance market. When we decide that it's in the public interest to screen for things like breast cancer, or to immunize children against whooping cough and measles and hepatitis, or to keep insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick, or to discriminate against people with pre-exisiting conditions, you need government to do that. No other entity is going to do that. Because there is no functioning "free market" for health care. Sadly, we don't live in libertarian fantasy land.

 

If you don't think birth control pills are something that should be covered by all plans despite evidence that this is best for women's health and for lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies and for saving taxpayer money in the long run, then go ahead and make that argument. But to suddenly be stunned by the reality of a government that regulates the health insurance market, and to imagine that if we extend birth control coverage to some plans that don't already cover birth control is something bizarre and out of the ordinary, that just shows you were born yesterday.

 

Again, nobody made a peep when they've announced regulations or mandates for other procedures, or other forms preventative care, over the past few decades. So just admit it - you think this is about sluts fucking for pleasure, and you don't like the idea of sluts getting to fuck for pleasure. The rest of us already know that this is what you're mad at because it's clear from the posts in here, and the reaction to the Limbaugh rant. You're still upset that the sexual revolution didn't go your way.

 

But don't try to pretend this is about your liberty. It's not.

 

Heck, health insurance is not a right and it is not a privelage. The whole law and the mandates are over reaching.

[heckofajobbrownie]

While we are in all honesty mode, let's stop pretending that we give a shit about sexist or racist remarks when they're made about the other side.

And let's not pretend this is about women's rights.

And let's not pretend that anyone is denying this dame contraception.

Obama wanted to pick a fight with religious conservatives.

That part icular minority isn't on the preferred list.

The national media is glad as usual to carry his water.

Bigotry is only acceptable if you're on the left.

But this isn't about bigotry is it?

This broad is just a political hack wanna be and this is a campaign ploy.

And it's a good one.

WSS

 

I don't agree with any of this. It's all either not true, or a loony conspiracy theory about how this "broad" was a "plant" sent by Obama to pick a fight, so it doesn't count as honesty for me. It counts as missing the point entirely.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But let's get back to the issue.

 

Again, about half of pregnancies in America are unintended, and around 40 percent of those end in abortion. Do you think the government should address either one of these realities? And, if so, how?

 

I happen to think both are worth addressing. Maybe your idea would differ from my idea. My preference would be to make contraception more widely available, affordable, and encouraged. According to the Brookings Institute, this would save taxpayers about 1.2 billion a year. The cost would be slightly higher insurance premiums to cover the cost of contraception.

 

What do you think should be done? Seriously.

[Mr. T]

Make it a option. If you want texting services on a cell phone plan then you pay for it. If you want a more expensive entertainment package on directtv you pay for it. If you want a SUV so that you will be safe driving down the highway, then you pay for it.

[Westside Steve]

But let's get back to the issue.

 

Again, about half of pregnancies in America are unintended, and around 40 percent of those end in abortion. Do you think the government should address either one of these realities? And, if so, how?

 

I happen to think both are worth addressing. Maybe your idea would differ from my idea. My preference would be to make contraception more widely available, affordable, and encouraged. According to the Brookings Institute, this would save taxpayers about 1.2 billion a year. The cost would be slightly higher insurance premiums to cover the cost of contraception.

 

What do you think should be done? Seriously.

 

Right off the bat I can't agree with your premise. If in fact that is that woman become pregnant and deliver out of wedlock children because they can't get contraceptives easily enough. It seems that they are readily available at low cost or free just about anywhere in the u s. It's more fun to have sex and worry about the consequences later. And then at that point abortion is a quick and reasonably easy way out.

If you think the government should be controlling human sexual activities and reproduction, remember you just called me a fascist for suggesting that.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ugh, I miss Tupa.

 

This is a really, really sad effort. You described a system where the government gives everyone some sort of screening test to decide whether or not they can reproduce. Yes, that's fascism. And you're now pretending that switching contraceptives from often covered by insurance to certainly covered by insurance means the government is "controlling human sexual activities and reproduction"??

 

Are you serious? Come on, man. That's pathetic. In your example, the government has complete power over whether or not one of its citizens can reproduce. In my example, they don't. It's not even close to being an argument. I can't even believe you tried that.

 

Look, you said something stupid - that the government should screen parents before they have children and judge whether or not they're fit to reproduce. You don't get to pawn that off on me like we're suggesting the same thing.

 

Plus, you're now denying the premise that some women don't use birth control because they don't want to pay the cost, even while saying that some women don't use birth control even though it's easily accessible. I'm not quite convinced you've got a point there. But this stuff is studied, Steve. I'm not just making this up. If you make contraceptive care more affordable by covering it as part of their health insurance, the use of it will go up. That's just a fact. It would reduce unwanted pregnancies, and reduce abortion.

 

You can disagree with it on some sort of libertarian grounds if you like (while never making a peep about non-sexual-related coverage, or the fact that Viagra is usually covered) but you can't invent an objection that isn't true.

 

Here's what would happen: premiums for everyone would go up slightly to cover the cost of contraception. That's the cost of doing this. No one gets shit for free. in return, more women would use birth control, particularly poorer women who previously didn't have any insurance, or had it and birth control wasn't covered. You'd have fewer unwanted pregnancies, and fewer abortions to end those pregnancies.

 

The reduced incidence of unwanted pregnancies and births, or abortions, combined with fewer health problems from women who will derive health benefits from being on birth control, minus the cost of treating the additional women who will develop problems as the result of being on birth control (this also happens in a small minority of cases), is estimated to save taxpayers over a billion a year.

 

I'd think you'd be in favor of this, especially because it would mean fewer women having babies out of wedlock, and fewer single mothers, and fewer families on Medicaid. After all, childbirth costs about $10,000 to $12,000 grand, and that's before the 20-40 doctor visits after the kid is born. That's just the actual birth.

 

Up to you. Not in reality, of course, but it seems like if you could get past your "irresponsibility" hang up you'd realize that this makes it easier for people to afford to be responsible.

 

Or is the hang up that it's something Obama proposed, so it must be wrong? I can never tell.

[Westside Steve]

I don't know how much more accessible you wish birth control was.

Or how you plan on forcing the masses to use it.

Or convincing them to if the word force bothers you.

 

I mean maybe the president to give a speech and urge responsibility.

It seems like if anyone else to suggest that you get angry.

 

So you want people to do the responsible thing and use birth control.

Well great I don't see you where we differ.

 

If we must promote the idea that single motherhood has no downside, no shame associated with it then I don't know what you want.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And if Vlagra bothers you, it is actually meant to treat an ailment.

Today, right now this minute, contraception is free or at least cheap and widely accessible.

And again I remind you, I'm not one of the religious conservatives bet you wish to crush out.

 

And again no I don't think it would make for less unwanted pregnancies. Birth control is widely available and you can't force them to use it.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

"Here are facts and studies and research that agrees with me"

 

"Yeah, but I don't like that answer, so I'll say they're wrong"

 

"But you can't just say something is wrong and then believe it is wrong"

 

"Nope, I don't like taht so it is a lie"

 

.....

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't know how much more accessible you wish birth control was.

Or how you plan on forcing the masses to use it.

Or convincing them to if the word force bothers you.

 

I mean maybe the president to give a speech and urge responsibility.

It seems like if anyone else to suggest that you get angry.

 

So you want people to do the responsible thing and use birth control.

Well great I don't see you where we differ.

 

If we must promote the idea that single motherhood has no downside, no shame associated with it then I don't know what you want.

WSS

 

Steve, my brother, you're completely missing the point, and then going off haywire.

 

Just take your first paragraph:

 

I don't know how much more accessible you wish birth control was.

 

I wish it were more accessible by making it more affordable.

 

Or how you plan on forcing the masses to use it.

 

Obviously, you don't force the masses to use it. You make it more affordable and then more people would use it. Does the economic effect of lowering prices not apply here somehow?

 

If you have a sale on beer, do you do it to sell more beer or less?

 

Also, the president has given speeches on personal responsibility, and no one on the left got mad.

[MLD Woody]

If Chick-fil-A sandwiches were more affordable, I'd eat more

[heckofajobbrownie]

And if Vlagra bothers you, it is actually meant to treat an ailment.

Today, right now this minute, contraception is free or at least cheap and widely accessible.

And again I remind you, I'm not one of the religious conservatives bet you wish to crush out.

 

And again no I don't think it would make for less unwanted pregnancies. Birth control is widely available and you can't force them to use it.

WSS

 

This is perfect. Okay, then. Conservatives are now saying, sure, okay, if someone is taking birth control for a medical reason, like the friend Sandra Fluke described, that should be covered. (And Fluke was wrong - at Georgetown, that already is covered.)

 

So how about this? Only men who suffer from actual erectile dysfunction, diagnosed by a doctor, can have Viagra covered by insurance. Men in their 30s and 40s and 50s and 60s who use it for reasons related to sexual performance - i.e. to stay hard and fuck like a 18-year-old all over again - have to pay for it out of pocket.

 

Yes, yes! I remember this being a huge cause on the right! Stop making me pay for men who just want to have sex!

 

Remember when Rush Limbaugh went off on men who just get their Viagra covered because they want to have lots of sex? And then he said, "If you male whores want me to pay for all of your sex, you have to film it and make me a sex tape, you sluts!"

 

We all remember that, right? This has nothing to do with the fact that these are women! Not at all!

[Westside Steve]

Furthermore if you think toop will back you up on the idea that the u s government should provide free and even promote abortions email him and post his response.

You even admitted that there is a point during pregnancy where you believe abortion for non life threatening or health reasons is immoral right?

It just bothers you that some christians think that time comes earlier than you do.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And I'll bet that most of the cases of prescribed viagara have nothing much to do with actual disease.

I bet that it has more to do with wanting a little extra boost, ;-).

But do you agree that it would be unethical for a doctor to prescribe that medication knowing that there is no medical need? If in fact there is no discernible medical necessity then a doctor could not prescribe pain medication for entertainment purposes. If you are not diagnosed with pain it would be unethical to prescribe oxycodone.

But even though we laugh about it sure indiscriminate unprotected sex is probably a bad idea no matter which gender if you are. Can we agree on that?

( And didn't you just say you don't care what rush says?)

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Furthermore if you think toop will back you up on the idea that the u s government should provide free and even promote abortions email him and post his response.

You even admitted that there is a point during pregnancy where you believe abortion for non life threatening or health reasons is immoral right?

It just bothers you that some christians think that time comes earlier than you do.

WSS

 

Huh? We're not talking about abortions. We're talking about contraception.

 

As for Tupa, I know his position on abortion. I don't know if he believes contraception should be a part of the series of the universal coverage package. He might, he might not.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And I'll bet that most of the cases of prescribed viagara have nothing much to do with actual disease.

I bet that it has more to do with wanting a little extra boost, ;-).

But do you agree that it would be unethical for a doctor to prescribe that medication knowing that there is no medical need? If in fact there is no discernible medical necessity then a doctor could not prescribe pain medication for entertainment purposes. If you are not diagnosed with pain it would be unethical to prescribe oxycodone.

But even though we laugh about it sure indiscriminate unprotected sex is probably a bad idea no matter which gender if you are. Can we agree on that?

( And didn't you just say you don't care what rush says?)

WSS

 

So since you agree that it's usually not related to a medical condition - and it isn't - you're for making sure it's not covered by insurance like it is now? At least that would be consistent.

 

But you can see how inconsistent this is for the rest of the people on the "I don't want to pay for your sex, you slut!" bandwagon? Especially since getting pregnant does have health consequences, and getting your rocks off doesn't.

 

Off to do actual work.

[Westside Steve]

So since you agree that it's usually not related to a medical condition - and it isn't - you're for making sure it's not covered by insurance like it is now? At least that would be consistent.

 

But you can see how inconsistent this is for the rest of the people on the "I don't want to pay for your sex, you slut!" bandwagon? Especially since getting pregnant does have health consequences, and getting your rocks off doesn't.

 

Off to do actual work.

You are correct there bud. I really need to get on the horn and put my summer season at the bay together.

 

But I guess I have no problem with insurance not picking up non essential medication.

And I suppose and both cases the man could tell the doctor he really can't get it up there by making it a necessity or a woman claiming to have cramps or whatnot that are alleviated by the pills.

But I think you are purposely overlooking the inclusion of the morning after pill which some folks believe is aborting a human life.

WSS