Stop trying to be cute. Insults work best when they aren’t funny. Humor lessens the impact of an insult.
She’s a slut. She is an ugly slut. She looks like Frodo.
30 is the new 23 they say.
So here we have someone who probably says that she just wants to keep the Evil Republicans out of her bedroom and body while at the same time is eager to invite Uncle Sam in for a threesome, as long as he brings the Trojans.
The double-standard on this issue is glaringly apparent. Do you know how much money I have to spend on beer and whisky every week to get drunk enough to have sex with that skank? I guarantee I’m spending ten times more on alcohol than she’s spending on contraception, all to the same end, but you don’t see me sobbing to Congress for subsidized student beer.
The questions raised by this recent rulemaking on the Affordable Health Care Act are on so many different levels.
The Catholic Church has a teaching on birth control. To the world outside of those who promulgate as well as accept that teaching, it is the Church that is failing to recognize the modern world, much as people outside of Islam are critical of Sharia Law as being a Medieval relic in the modern world. Much as the Catholic Church regards birth control as a moral wrong, the broader society tends to view opposition to birth control, not simply as a quirk of a conservative religious sect, but also as a moral wrong, one infringing on the rights of women, much as Sharia is viewed by non-Muslims as infringing on the rights of women.
On the other hand, the United States has a centuries-old, perhaps a founding tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism, that we accept Puritans and Quakers and Christian Scientists and Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Latter-Day Saints and Evangelical Christians for who they are, that each can give free expression to their moral teaching, provided that the laws and traditions of the broader American society are observed and respected.
The reason I was told that we needed the Affordable Health Care act was that we already mandated that people could not be turned away from emergency rooms for lack of insurance or lack of money, and we needed to mandate insurance coverage so the health care system would not collapse under its own financial weight. My response is fine, solve the emergency room problem by providing some governmental assistance for catastrophic and financially ruinious medical conditions. But let us move the system more in the direction where people pay out-of-pocket for more routine medical expenses to bring market discipline to bear on runaway health costs.
But instead, the Affordable Health Care Act is mandating everything under the sun be covered by insurance. And somewhere the Hyde Amendment on no Federal funding for abortions, something having much broader support than just Catholics, went by the wayside. And now this.
The way I see it, President Obama and Secretary Sibelius regard the Catholic position on birth control as a Medieval relic like requiring women to cover themselves head-to-toe in public, and in light of state mandates for insurance coverage, as a no-brainer. The American Catholic Bishops, on the other hand, decided with unanimity to draw a line in the sand. It is one thing to realize the realities of birth control in the modern world and to not form an Inquisition to start torturing married couples and mainly women into confessions regarding their use of same. It is another thing for a Federal mandate that Catholic institutions pay for birth control procedures, including forms of birth control that are believed in cases to result in spontaneous abortions.
The Catholic Bishops believe that if they give ground on the Federal mandate, this will remove the last vestige of any basis to adhere to Catholic teaching on this matter. The Obama people believe the same, and say good riddance to what they consider to be a moral wrong on the part of the Church.
President Obama is not giving any ground with his risible “accomodation.” The Catholic Bishops are also not giving any ground, with at least one high-ranking bishop publicly threatening to dismantle the Catholic hospitals serving 1/6th of the population. There are going to be serious political consequences to each side, both in the case of sticking to their guns and also to the case if they cave. If the President gets reelected and gets his way, the Catholic Bishops either carry out the threat to go nuclear on their hospitals, or they suffer a severe loss of credibility.
And then there is the dimension that the Catholic Bishops are not Libertarian/Right-Wingers. For better or for worse, they have interpreted the same system of Catholic morality as one forbidding artificial birth control as also one supporting a government takeover of health care. Hence they are part of the pro-Affordable Health Care Act coalition, not because they are leftists or Socialists, but because they have reasoned their membership in the coalition from the same moral code that has them against birth control.
I guess ol’ Scott Brown seeking reelection in Massachussetts, without much help from us Right Wingers, had the right spin. Ted Kennedy was against a mandate for birth control in all of the incarnations of Health Care Reform, and so am I.
Which brings us to, what is President Obama thinking? Why is he waging the battle of all politically correct persons against the antiquated birth control ideology of the Catholic Church now, with a Supreme Court case looming on the Individual Mandate and his own reelection not a shoo-in, even by the estimation of the Liberal Left? Why is he dissing a major coalition partner in getting his signature Affordable Health Care Law enacted.
Why is he doing this, given his track record with getting the Olympics to Chicago, getting China to agree to limits on CO2, getting Congress to agree on even modest tax increases? Why is he picking this fight?
And the Catholic Bishops have as much endorsed the Romney candidacy as they are able to with their religious tax-exempt status, as they must know by now the Mr. Obama is incapable of backing down. Are they prepared to go nuclear on the Catholic hospitals? In public life, you don’t go around making threats that you are not prepared to carry out. But it is said that some of the high-ranking Catholic Bishops are shrewd political players, and Mr. Obama seems to be carried by other dynamics than him having a single political bone in his body.
So with respect to Ms. Fluke, the proper response should not be to impune her morals. In the spirit of the immortal words of W F Buckley, “Cancel your own g-d subscription”, our response should be “Purchase your own contraceptive meds”, nothing more, nothing less.
Which brings us to, what is President Obama thinking? Why is he waging the battle of all politically correct persons against the antiquated birth control ideology of the Catholic Church now, with a Supreme Court case looming on the Individual Mandate and his own reelection not a shoo-in, even by the estimation of the Liberal Left? Why is he dissing a major coalition partner in getting his signature Affordable Health Care Law enacted.
Because Obama is desperate for the “women’s vote” and is therefore willing to throw the Catholics under the church bus.
Could be, but then it could be he’s incompetent, a mysteriously praised and honored mediocrity who has been given supreme executive power, which is the plot of a 30’s screwball comedy, but isn’t.
I would watch that movie, and laugh. What I am watching now makes me ill.
Excellent comment, Paul. 🙂
I think Obama’s position on this issue reflects the fact that he lives in the bubble and rarely listens to regular people, much less understands them. What few advisors he does listen to live in bubbles of their own, representing the politically correct circles in San Francisco, Manhattan, Long Island, a few Ivy League schools, and leftist think tanks and advocacy organizations.
If the government is going to hand out free birth control pills, eventually it will dictate what kind of pills and and practices women should use to better control costs and risks. Feminist liberals will discover that a lot of women who got conned into the free system lost their sexual independence by supporting and joining a centralized reproductive bureaucracy where Catholics and Baptists have a lot of political say. If these women thought their boyfriends were flaky, what will they think of having Congress calling the shots in their bedrooms?
It is a slippery slope from here are some free BC pills to you all must take these pills until you are allowed to stop.
I still haven’t heard or read a sound argument for the federal government haivng a role in providing free contraceptive. Those in favor of it tend to use eugenic population control arguments.
The thing is — this is a moot point. It already does. Contraceptives are cheap if not “free” already. This is a manufactured political issue for the campaign season to distract us from the real issues, win the unenthusiastic “women’s vote”, etc.
Fair enough Titus, I agree it should be moot. I’ve never seen a problem with the availability of contraceptives. I met plenty of co-eds in college that had a drawer full of condoms because they got them for free.
But those arguing for it are acting like they need to be free in every teenagers drawer. I think those people need to be asked “why?”. Eventually, you’ll get them to their eugenics line of thought, and then you can slap them with their own comments.
You’re too optimistic. Any leftie old enough to understand the concept of eugenics is simply going to toe the party line — President Axelrod hath commanded his minions to fight on this nonsensical hill, so they do. For the younger set, this remains a non-issue because no real person has trouble acquiring contraceptives — they need only remember to use them.
All respect I once had for Newt has been lost with this comment. If he had just said “prostitute” I could have forgiven it, as he would have been making a technical argument, not a judgement call.. but apparently Newt hates women who like sex – which is the only time you should use the word “slut” – and that’s not okay with me.
Newt? I think you are confusing Newt with Rush.
I must have been tired.. forget I said anything, I never had any respect for Rush.
She’s no slut, but to call her a prostitute is an insult to hookers who put in an honest day’s work.
I have a lot to say about this issue that most of you would just dismiss as liberal nonsense, so I’ll skip it.
But I’ll mention the following, because I believe it is non-partisan:
(The article is about teens and women between the ages of 15 and 44 – it is not just about teens.)
I have a lot to say about this issue that most of you would just dismiss as liberal nonsense, so I’ll skip it.
Excellent decision.
As to your links, these are reasons for the person to take the medicine, not for society to pay for the person to take the medicine. My view on such things is that if something is valuable enough to you, then you will pay for it and society needs not assist.
The only point I wanted to make, amid a lot of disrespect toward women in general and one woman in particular, was that when we are discussing who should pay for birth control pills, we needn’t be talking about sex and sexual practices — we can just have a debate about who should pay for medicine, and health care in general. You and Wodun seem happy to do that, so have at it! I”m going to abstain.
I do wonder if employees of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who are not themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses have had an analogous problem with insurance coverage for blood transfusions.
Bob:
If they do have a problem getting coverage for blood transfusions, they can go find a different job. Or buy their own insurance. Or pay for the transfusion.
Should YOU pay for it? That what you see to be suggesting.
I can see why you’d want to redirect the focus to “other reasons to take the pill”. A federal mandate for contraception coverage places women’s personal sexual choices squarely in the arena of public debate. You’re the ones dragging sex out of the private sphere in this situation. As uncomfortable with that truth as you probably are, don’t expect others to flock to your defense. You’ve chosen what’s more important. At least have the guts to live with it.
Ok, fine. Lets talk about sex. And lets not talk about the health ramifications of getting pregnant, lets just focus on what you want to focus on: Sex is fun.
Running is also fun. If Sandra Fluke is a prostitute, then the guy who gets a knee replacement courtesy of his employer’s health insurance plan is a professional athlete.
I don’t think so. If you do, fine, but politically, this is a loser of an issue. Much better to focus on religious freedom – that’s my free political advice.
But if you’d rather take on the health care payment debate, that’s ok too, just do it without degrading women. One strategy to avoid misogyny is to not be a misogynist. This seems to be difficult for some of you. Another complementary strategy is stop focusing on sex. Here’s how:
Birth control pills for the purpose of contraception and knee surgeries are both examples of elective (unnecessary) medicine that allows people to live life to the fullest. So stop focusing on the hot button topic of sex, and instead just imagine a health care plan that will keep employees alive but relegated to a wheel chair unless they can pay for their own knee surgeries. All the same arguments about who should pay and who should be forced to pay will still apply.
—–
I see this example of federal interference between an employer and an employee as not particularly different than the minimum wage, except that it has a religious dimension which makes it interesting. But I don’t want to spend the weekend arguing about it — I really just wanted to speak up about the disparagement of women. You can defend the use of words like “femmegogue”, but I think it just drags a good debate about health care insurance and freedom of religion down into the muck.
politically, this is a loser of an issue. Yes, for the Dems it is. People are really getting sick and tired of being told they have to pay for another person’s shit. Especially something like contraception. Sex is an optional act, especially for unwed people.
People are absolutely swearing furious about this at work but the MSM is deliberately missing it.
Thats fine, they aren’t going to miss it next November.
Bob-1: The federal government should REQUIRE ALL health insurance plans to provide no-deductable, no-co-pay coverage of knee replacement surgery. The consumer shall have no say in the matter; it’s there whether you want it or not.
That’s a winner BOB!
And lets not talk about the health ramifications of getting pregnant
You sure are NOT in favor of that. With free birth control for all, why would anyone care? You’ve completely removed the incentive to investigate it. You’ve replaced a market-based insurance system where consumers are encouraged to shop around and educate themselves about what choices they have with a government-forced product that is designed by bureaucrats.
Congratulations.
“Birth control pills for the purpose of contraception and knee surgeries are both examples of elective (unnecessary) medicine that allows people to live life to the fullest.”
Hehe, I’ll be sure to tell my dad with two knee replacements that they were both elective and unnecessary procedures on par with taking birth control. I’m sure he’ll get a kick out of that.
we needn’t be talking about sex and sexual practices — we can just have a debate about who should pay for medicine, and health care in general.
Why? We already did that during Obamacare. You honestly think that’s a more fruitful discussion? I think everyone here is pretty solid in their positions on that one.
Bob-1 raises an interesting question.
If a Catholic employer refused to pay for an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, then Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, because given the dangers of transfusions, you don’t transfuse anyone unless you are saving their life.
But why isn’t birth control considered in the same elective category as plastic surgery for a person not suffering from deformity, refractive surgery for vision — near sightedness and having to wear heavy glasses could be considered a medical burden — and so on? In light of the availibility of 99% effective barrier contraception from items used in combination from any Wal-Mart?
No Bob-1,
there is no general disrespect towards ‘women’, by anyone. Just because I think ONE woman may be a (enter that ‘s’ word here), doesn’t mean all women are (enter that ‘s’ word here). I’ll give Rush the same clearance.
The opinion of many is that this particular woman has openly stated openly, on a microphone in a Congressional Hearing, for the entire world to hear, that her sexual activities, during a three year time span will require her to spend $3000 for contraceptives, which brings many to a CONCLUSION that she’s ‘s1utty’.
On to the matter of ‘defining” (enter that ‘s’ word here).
Misters Merr1am and Webster define (enter that ‘s’ word here) as follows.
1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman
2
a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute
b : a saucy girl : minx
I think this is WHERE people, even Rush, shall we say, got the idea that she’s a (enter that ‘s’ word here). For anyone to ‘need’ $3000 worth of b control over 3 years, ‘implies’ a certain promiscuity. And, BTW, that $3K is a LOT of b control.
I found birth control pills online in a number of places for $45 for 3 months, or a quarter. But it’s $32 a month, if bought by the month. I’ll even go there for the math. 36 x $32 is $1152. I’ll add $10 a month for shipping, $1152 + $360 = $1452.
$3000 – $1452 = $1548.
Being a lawyer in training I’m betting she wants to be doubly careful to not have children, she’s taking pills AND using condoms. Even if she’s paying a high price for her condoms, let’s say $3 per, then over that 3 years, she’s buying / bought over 500 condoms. 516 to be exact. Of course, if you buy them in a big box at Wally World, they’re as cheap as 45 cents per ‘pop’. Which is SEVERAL times per day, 7 days per week, for three years.
THAT’S definitely s1utty behavior Bob. But let’s ass-u-me the 516 number now.
516 sexual encounters over 3 years is roughly, Ms. Fluke having s3xual intercourse every other day. That would be, for a young married person a pretty good run, every other day for 3 years. But MS or MISS Fluke is NOT married. To many, many, many Americans, someone who is UNMARRIED having s3x FREQUENTLY for ANY period, is defined as PROMISCUITY.
Bump that s3xual frequency up to every other day, it’s even more promiscuous.
Once again, Misters Merr1am and Webster define S1UT as follows.
1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman
2
a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute
b : a saucy girl : minx
Personally, I quit caring which girls were or were not s1utty several years before I got married. But, like most Adults, I’m still pretty sure I know a slut when I see one or when a I hear about this kind of activity from an unmarried female.
ALL my doubts are removed when the female in question openly admits on a microphone in a Congressional Hearing, for the entire world to hear, that her s3xual activities, during a three year time span will average having s3x MORE often than the average married person.
I think Rush has shown a lack of tact. He’s shown a lack of scope even, thinking this wouldn’t go nuke-ya-lur. But as far as I can see, his definition is dead on with that of the professional lexicographers at Merr1am-Webster.
And if the 516 is a LOW number, and the actual, 24 pack, Wally World low price shows she was having s3x 3 or 4 or 5 times a day, she’s absolutely a s1ut! There IS no other term that would cover it in my experience.
Except of course, prostitute, as Rush said.
Your comment would be more relevant is she was talking about health issues as the main reason but she wasn’t. She wants free contraception and she wants me to pay for it. Was Rush misogynistic? No, she put herself in the public sphere and demanded free contraception so she wouldn’t get pregnant from casual sex. Now if he had used the C word like Bill Maher did about Sarah Palin or treated an under age minor as a slut in a joke like Dave Letterman did with Willow Palin, well you might have something. Most of the disrespect towards women comes from left wing pundits and Democrats. Knee replacements and contraception, one of these is not like the other.
“No, she put herself in the public sphere and demanded free contraception so she wouldn’t get pregnant from casual sex.”
Well I’d remove the word casual – that’s an assumption
However……according to “The Washington Post reported Fluke entered Georgetown Law well aware that the school’s insurance plan did not cover contraception, only to spend the next three years lobbying the school to change its policy.”
From the Daily Caller:
“Fluke attended Cornell University from 1999-2003, where she received a B.S. in Policy Analysis & Management and Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.”
So this isn’t her first rodeo.
But to me the key bit of info is that – according to the Post now – she entered Georgetown Law School KNOWING that the health plan didn’t cover contraception. And she wants to change that.
Well she’s welcome to try but GLS is just as welcome to offer the health care plans they want.
If she doesn’t like it she can go to a different law school.
None of that provides a rationale for why the government needs to hand out BC from cradle to grave. This isn’t about banning BC, it is about the government forcing employeers to pay foril it, preventing people from choosing health insurance plans that offer what they want, and telling businesses what products to sell.
The head of HHS said BC is cheaper than having a baby so it saves money. Saves money for who? The government that will be subsidizing it. These are the arguments of government run health care and we would not even be having them if it wasn’t for the freedom killing Obamacare.
I’m sure the liberals would prefer the government hand out sterilization anyway..
If I’m going to pay for someone else’s abortion, maybe I should kick in a bit of extra money and pay for their sterilization (ok, sterilization might be out, but one of the long-term contraceptives should suffice).
I really don’t care about people’s personal life style choices but as soon as I have to pay for it, I have an opinion and recommendations on changes to their behavior to cost me less money.
I detest Obamacare for making everyone’s personal life style my business =(
You *already* have to pay for everyone else’s life style choices with regard to healh and health care – most notably, through tax-supported ER visits, some of which turn into long term hospital admissions, surgery, etc. We aren’t going to deny care to people who can’t pay, so you’re on the hook. What activities do you want to prohibit and what privacy do you want to invade in order to lower your costs?
BOB! You’re RIGHT! Single-payer is the way to go! Thank you for so eloquently and concisely making the case. I’m converted.
As an aside, how can you live here when we still have this antiquated, troglodyte thing called insurance? Doesn’t it drive you crazy?
Wodun implied Obamacare is different from the status quo, and I’m saying it isn’t: anyone might end up in an ER, and ER or no ER, almost anyone might end up with medical bills in excess of their ability to pay. I’m self-employed, pay for my own health insurance, naturally I chose a high deductible catastrophic plan, but I worry about catastrophes that my insurance won’t cover. Clearly Wodun ought to babysit me to at least reduce the chances of me getting into certain kinds of trouble. He seems ok, maybe it will be fun. Sadly, there are expensive medical problems a person can have which Wodun can’t protect us both from, so he might end up paying for me in the end anyway.
If you don’t want to be babysat, then join me. I’m moving to Canada. They don’t have ANY babysitters there.
ER visits are a bad example. Not every visit goes unpaid by the patient and not everyone uses the ER as their primary care. Obamacare includes everyone not just a few outliers.
I don’t think I would make a good babysitter if the goal was to limit risky behavior =p
Fishing is the sport with the highest rates of eye injuries afterall.
Why do you think it’s my responsibility either way?
wodun,
it should be ‘whom’. …saves money for whom.
Saves money for who? The government that will be subsidizing it.
It’s the fewer people, and the right people, mentality of eugenics. As I saw someone note on a news program, if HHS got their way, who would be around in the future to pay for this massive entitlement?
Eugenics is the word that instantly came to mind when I saw the headline. Sibelius just wants to clean up the trash. Not good – what will she want to do next, get rid of the useless old people?
If I pay a prostitute, at least I get to have sex with her.
Ms. Fluke wants me to pay so she can have sex with others.
I suppose it’s selfish of me to be rather lukewarm to that idea.
Ms. Fluke wants me to pay so she can have sex with others.
Where do you get that? She wants the private health insurance plan (that she pays for) to cover prescription birth control pills the same way it covers prescription drugs for diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, or any other health concern.
Yes, birth control would not be an issue for women if they all were celibate. Likewise, anyone who smokes, drinks, eats an unhealthy diet, neglects to exercise, rides a motorcycle, or operates power tools is asking his insurer to cover the health care implications of those choices. And Ms. Fluke’s plan is happy to cover those choices. If you drink yourself to the point of addiction, they’ll pay for a treatment program. If you smoke until you get lung cancer, they’ll pay for the chemo and surgery. If you cut off your finger with a table saw, they’ll pay to sew it back on. If you drink a six-pack of beer and drive your motorcycle into a telephone pole, they’ll pay for the ambulance and the surgery and the physical therapy.
But if you’re a woman, single or married, who wants to have sex without getting pregnant, that’s when Georgetown decides to get picky about personal choices.
If it really was a “private” health insurance plan, there wouldn’t be any issue here. But it most definitely is not. If she wanted a policy that did not cover contraceptives, she is SOL. If she doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s contraceptives, she is SOL.
And Ms. Fluke’s plan is happy to cover those choices.
They don’t have a choice. The government requires that they do. So their “happiness” is an abstract concept that has no basis in reality.
Like most private insurance policies, they freely chose to cover all those things even before the government had any opinion on the matter. It’s only the government’s position on covering birth control that bothers them. They never minded “subsidizing” all sorts of dubious personal choices through their health plan, but they draw the line at women having non-reproductive sex.
Actually gender doesn’t enter into it. They don’t want to cover condoms either. It’s you anti-choice folks on the left who are all up in arms over women’s rights. I hope you’re happy with the resulting focus on women’s personal sexual choices. I’m sure that’s going down real well with a large section of the electorate.
Of course gender enters into it. Preventing pregnancy is not a health concern for men. Georgetown will cover standard preventative care for any health issue that affects men, but won’t cover a major health concern of women.
I will let you in on a dirty little secret from the hetero male perspective. Men are concerned with proventing pregnancy. They have massive financial and psychological incentives to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Well, Wodun, a lot less than they used to a hundred years ago, with all the wonderful consequences for families and society. Thanks, liberals. Or progressives. Or whatever the next word is that you appropriate to label yourselves after the current one becomes tainted by being associated with you.
Jim writes:
“Likewise, anyone who smokes, drinks, eats an unhealthy diet, neglects to exercise, rides a motorcycle, or operates power tools is asking his insurer to cover the health care implications of those choices. And Ms. Fluke’s plan is happy to cover those choices…………But if you’re a woman, single or married, who wants to have sex without getting pregnant, that’s when Georgetown decides to get picky about personal choices.”
You do not see the GLARING difference? One has to do with health problems….one has to do with not wanting to get pregnant.
You cannot see the difference?
Or are you like Obama and think that pregnancy is a problem?
Then you write:
“Like most private insurance policies, they freely chose
……..”
YES freely chose. That’s the key issue here.
“…. to cover all those things even before the government had any opinion on the matter. It’s only the government’s position on covering birth control that bothers them. ”
That’s because the government should not have a position on this.
“…They never minded “subsidizing” all sorts of dubious personal choices through their health plan, but they draw the line at women having non-reproductive sex.”
I reject your unspoken premise:
The law school and the insurance companies are private entities. They get to decide to do whatever they want to do.
The government has NO BUSINESS dictating anything.
And then you write:
“Of course gender enters into it. Preventing pregnancy is not a health concern for men. Georgetown will cover standard preventative care for any health issue that affects men, but won’t cover a major health concern of women.”
Oh really? Tell me, do you know whether or not the Georgetown health plan covers vasectomies?
I personally do not know. But before you can make that statement you need to know.
think that pregnancy is a problem
It’s a major health issue, and a major problem if you don’t want to be pregnant.
The government has NO BUSINESS dictating anything.
So Georgetown should be able to offer a health care plan that doesn’t cover vaccinations?
It would be better if Georgetown, and other employers and schools, were out of the insurance business altogether, so that individuals could choose their policies rather than having those institutions make the choice. The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is a big step in that direction.
Tell me, do you know whether or not the Georgetown health plan covers vasectomies?
No, they don’t. But men don’t die or suffer ill health for lack of a vasectomy, which is why vasectomies aren’t considered routine preventive care.
“It’s a major health issue, and a major problem if you don’t want to be pregnant.”
Do you know the difference between health insurance and health care? I doubt that you do. I see you left that one out in your response.
Insurance companies give YOU a method of mitigating risks. They charge based upon actuarials and you decide if the cost is worth the protection. It’s a free transaction. Everyone wins.
IF the insurance company calculated correctly, they will end up with a little money after paying out when people get sick. They take a risk too.
But BC pills are not a risk…and that is the key difference here. You ignore it.
Covering BC pills is a guaranteed pay out. If you have your way, they will give money out just for the asking. AS opposed to calculating the chances that they will have to pay out for scarlet fever or heart surgery.
“So Georgetown should be able to offer a health care plan that doesn’t cover vaccinations?”
Absolutely. However if they did, no one would buy their insurance and they’d go out of business.
“It would be better if Georgetown, and other employers and schools, were out of the insurance business altogether, so that individuals could choose their policies rather than having those institutions make the choice.”
But they can! No one is FORCED to accept the Georgetown insurance policy. They can buy their own.
“No, they don’t. But men don’t die or suffer ill health for lack of a vasectomy,”
Oh please. This is not the Dark Ages. Additionally, health insurance does not exist to mitigate risk of death – that’s what life insurance is for.
“…..which is why vasectomies aren’t considered routine preventive care.”
Ahhh but that’s not what you said is it? What you SAID is:
“but they draw the line at women having non-reproductive sex.”
and
“But if you’re a woman, single or married, who wants to have sex without getting pregnant,…”
YOU made it a sex-related issue and not health. When faced with the destruction of that argument you move the goalposts and now try to draw a picture of millions of women dying in horrid manners.
And once again the government has no business dictating what insurance companies will and will not cover. The only function of government is to assure the means of redressing contracts violation and have a decent body of contract law to protect consumers who’ve made a contract with insurance companies.
No, they don’t. But men don’t die or suffer ill health for lack of a vasectomy, which is why vasectomies aren’t considered routine preventive care.
But we do die and suffer ill health from lack of Nutrition I demand my health insurance to pay for my food costs . IT PREVENTIVE Care, what am I paying them for if there not keeping me healthy.
and walking too much must not be good for the knees or hips so demand a segway to be provided too.
Well Jim, if I’m in the same pool she is, the cost is figured into my premium. Obamacare will dictate coverage and it’s the same thing. I don’t care how you try to gloss it over, she wants coverage for something her plan doesn’t want to cover. She is free to find other insurance. But, noooooo, behaving like the good statist she is, she wants the government to make them pay for it, whether they want to or not.
Wrong. She wanted the HHS mandate, which requires *ALL* insurers–including self-insuring entities–to cover the entire cost of contraception. In other words, she wants Catholics to pay for her birth control.
Re the “slut” epithet:
I saw a comment elsewhere that said, “What else would you call a woman who is so sexually active that she can’t afford all the contraception she needs?”
Imagine she is married.
Bob, she is NOT married, she is a student paying 60k a year in tuition and room+board(or getting grant money) at a tier 1 law school begging for a subsidy for her recrational purposes. It is really that simply, please don’t try and make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Imagine she is a Velociraptor for all I care..
She isn’t advocating solely on her own behalf. She is advocating for other people, including married women. But I wanted to answer Rickl’s question. He asked about “a woman”, and my answer is that a married woman who can’t afford birth control pills wouldn’t be called a slut.
begging for a subsidy for her recrational purposes
Georgetown uses her premium dollars to cover treatment for students who choose to take all sorts of risks with their health. They can smoke, drink, do illegal drugs, and juggle chainsaws, and Georgetown will use her premium dollars to pay the resulting medical bills. But if she wants to have sex without getting pregnant, like most adult females, well now she’s asking for far too much.
Right, because evil Georgetown is denying her contraceptives. In fact, she risks getting arrested if they are found in her possession.
And I can guess what your opinion would be on Georgetown being allowed to offer different insurance policies with different coverages and deductibles to account for smoking, drinking and juggling chainsaws.
(kind of funny how it works both ways huh?)
like most adult females, well now she’s asking for far too much. Because obviously she or her partner cannot possibly afford a pack of condoms on their own dime. Yeah, she is asking far too much in this instance.
Hey Jim, crime is a danger to my health, JAMA said so. My health insurance should pay for my pistol, training and martial arts training too. Crime is a threat to my health and I deserved to be covered.
Buy my shit or I am going to raise hell!
Because obviously she or her partner cannot possibly afford a pack of condoms on their own dime.
By your standard there’s no actual need for lots of what health insurance covers. Everyone can afford to eat only healthy foods, never drink to excess or use illegal drugs, exercise diligently, brush and floss daily, never exceed the speed limit, avoid all risky activities, and always use sunscreen. And yet, most people don’t do all those things, and we expect health insurance to cover the health care expenses that result. You’re subjecting Ms. Fluke’s choices to a sort of scrutiny that is never applied to others’ choices.
And I can guess what your opinion would be on Georgetown being allowed to offer different insurance policies with different coverages and deductibles to account for smoking, drinking and juggling chainsaws.
Georgetown is allowed to do that, as far as I know, but they show no interest in doing so, because they have no general objection to subsidizing expensive, unhealthy choices. They have a specific objection to paying for birth control, and it has nothing to do with the price tag.
Tell me, Jim, are you aware of the difference between health *insurance* and health *care*?
Everyone can afford to eat only healthy foods, never drink to excess or use illegal drugs, exercise diligently, brush and floss daily, never exceed the speed limit, avoid all risky activities, and always use sunscreen. And yet, most people don’t do all those things, and we expect health insurance to cover the health care expenses that result. You’re subjecting Ms. Fluke’s choices to a sort of scrutiny that is never applied to others’ choices.
Jim, in law there is a concept know as the reasonable man defense. Eating and other activities you list are sliders on a grey scale. Sex is a binary choice, either you have it or not. A resonable man will not see mandated contraception as a reasonable imposition on the risk pool. As I said earlier, at my office, even the granola-munchers see the folly in this concept. The lline has to be drawn somewhere.
Like I said, we can carry your line of thought to the extreme. Where is my training and weapon?
A reasonable man will note that the vast majority of women have sex at times when they do not want to get pregnant, that pregnancy carries serious health consequences including risk of death, and that therefore pregnancy prevention should be part of routine medical care, just like flu shots and pap smears.
Where is my training and weapon?
If you can convince the medical profession that they should be standard preventive care, you should get them. Birth control pills aren’t “extreme”; they’re routine.
I need a new keyboard and mouse so my fingers don’t hurt. I can only ise a razor mouse or a g something keyboard. Remember it is for my health.
Posing as a reasonable man, Jim notes: “pregnancy carries serious health consequences including risk of death, and that therefore pregnancy prevention should be part of routine medical care, just like flu shots and pap smears.”
I hate to break it to him, but flu and cervical cancer are diseases. Pregnancy is not.
Danae, There are chronic conditions in which pregnancy would be unsafe for the mother or the baby or both. If a woman with such a condition doesn’t want to choose celibacy until menopause, some kind of pregnancy prevention is called for as a health measure. Additionally, as I noted above, many women take “birth control” pills for health-related reasons rather than for contraception.
Bob, no one is saying she can’t or shouldn’t take BC. They are saying the state and its citizens should not have to pay for it. Big difference.
They are also saying an employer should be able to choose what benefits a health care plan offers and not have the government dictate to them what they must pay for.
Georgetown uses her premium dollars to cover treatment for students who choose to take all sorts of risks with their health.
Treatment is the key word. Jim, are you saying Georgetown doesn’t cover pregnancies or crabs?
They can smoke, drink, do illegal drugs, and juggle chainsaws, and Georgetown will use her premium dollars to pay the resulting medical bills.
But Georgetown doesn’t buy the cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, or chainsaws. Jim, you are asking Georgetown to buy these things.
But if she wants to have sex without getting pregnant, like most adult females, well now she’s asking for far too much.
If she wants to have sex, do we have to buy her a bed too? Maybe she wants some KY jelly, do we need to buy it also? What other stuff does the public need to provide her for her sexual desires? Should we provide her with a free vibrator so she doesn’t even need a second person?
Wodun, I was replying to Danae’s argument that “flu and cervical cancer are diseases. Pregnancy is not”.
So, when you reply to me by saying “no one is saying she can’t or shouldn’t take BC”, how is that relevant to Danae’s argument or my retort? It sounds to me like you’re having the other, more sensible conversation about health care, and not the silly conversation which treats birth control pills differently from other health care because they involve sex and pregnancy. If you’re going to insist on being sensible, you’ll have to do it in some other conversation!
Nuts, that should have read “health care insurance”, rather than “health care”.
Bob-1, when pregnancy presents a lifelong threat to a woman’s life, the usual and less failure-prone treatment is tube ligation, which is routinely covered by health insurance.
I don’t think many of us oppose women taking birth control pills. One issue is whether other people should be forced to finance or dispense birth control pills or devices contrary to their religious convictions. Another is why this student, Ms. Fluke, and her ilk are unwilling to take advantage of the condoms offered free of charge at the vast majority of institutions of higher learning in this country. I’ve been office coordinator for the Student Health office at a state college in a very red state, and although I was not in a position to know to whom the condoms were dispensed, I do know that cartons of them moved onto and off of our dispensary shelves rapidly enough to warm any sexual recreationist’s heart.
If you’re going to insist on being sensible, you’ll have to do it in some other conversation!
Bob, your desire to conflate Danae’s comments that pregnancy rarely causes fatal problems for the mother isn’t sensible. No where has anyone suggested pregnancy not be covered by reasonable health insurance or provided freely by hospitals if a person can not afford such insurance. I’m sure Georgetown even covers it.
Bob, if you want to be taken seriously, try fairly considering what other people are writing. So let me state the argument that others are making: Why must others be forced to financially support Ms. Fluke’s sexual desires? Why can’t she take personal responsibility for her own birth control?
Imagine: A prestigious Islamic-affiliated university in Washington, D.C. offers a student health plan to Muslim and non-Muslim students alike. The plan doesn’t cover skin cancer treatment for women, because the university does not want to subsidize females going outside without a burka. A Protestant female student mounts a campaign to change the policy, and admits to sunbathing. Congress passes a law saying that private health insurance policies can’t deny cancer treatment on the basis of gender. The university protests, the GOP presidential candidates decry this assault on religious freedom, Mitt Romney says requiring skin cancer treatment for women is worse than the religious intolerance that drove his grandparents out of the country, and Rush Limbaugh attacks the shameless student’s sun worshipping hedonism, demanding videos of her in a bikini, since (by his reckoning) he’s paying for her self-indulgence.
Congress passes a law saying that private health insurance policies can’t deny cancer treatment on the basis of gender.
Deny? Jim, I think you’ve posted the single dumbest item in your history. Quite an accomplishment.
In other news: Amrica’s stupply of hay and straw had been drawn down to dangerously low levls. Domestic herbavores are now in imminent danger of starvation thanks to one particularly large, absurd strawman argument by Jim today….
No doubt. I couldn’t make it through 2 sentences and immediately scrolled down. LoL
I imagine if that happened that the left would go into full on religious bigotry against muslims similar to what is below now beong about catholics now. That is unless the right went after the muslim university, in that case cries of islamohpbia would ring from blog to network and the virtue of sharia law proclaimed in every venue and the university’s decisions being defended.
Congrats, Jim. You’ve just constructed a hypothetical that has nothing to do with anything related to this story other than one of the actors. You might as well say:
“What if a prestigious, self-insuring Jedi Academy on Coruscant excluded flu shots from coverage because even viruses are infused with the force? A female Padawan…yada, yada, yada…Rush Limbaugh…”
Haha, yea what if you find out you have this really high mitochlorian count but you just don’t want to deal with the stress and responsibility of wielding the force. I demand mitochlorian control pills be free and accessible for everyone!
Imagine: Jim makes a sensible argument.
No, I’m sorry, that’s just beyond the realm of fiction or fantasy…
“So here we have someone who probably says that she just wants to keep the Evil Republicans out of her bedroom and body while at the same time is eager to invite Uncle Sam in for a threesome, as long as he brings the Trojans.”
That’s why I call “liberals” and “progressives” and other varieties of tax-happy coercion junkies “State-shtuppers.”
Like so many other issues with the left, they want to live their libertine life style and not pay for it. At issue is not the freedom to buy or use birth control, but who pays. The left can win this only by confusing the latter as the former.
Hmm, I can tell conservatives and libertarians are very good at ignoring political bait and irrelevant distractions…
Ha! Too true…
No we know whey George asked the question.
JournOlists should have to declare their allegiance and who they are working for just like they do disclaimers about a company that funds them that they also report on.
A propos Trojans: beware Greeks bearing gifts…
Also, it’s interesting to note that some red states still legislate which bodily orifice can be used for what activity, depending on the gender of the participants.
Stop trying to be cute. Insults work best when they aren’t funny. Humor lessens the impact of an insult.
She’s a slut. She is an ugly slut. She looks like Frodo.
30 is the new 23 they say.
So here we have someone who probably says that she just wants to keep the Evil Republicans out of her bedroom and body while at the same time is eager to invite Uncle Sam in for a threesome, as long as he brings the Trojans.
The double-standard on this issue is glaringly apparent. Do you know how much money I have to spend on beer and whisky every week to get drunk enough to have sex with that skank? I guarantee I’m spending ten times more on alcohol than she’s spending on contraception, all to the same end, but you don’t see me sobbing to Congress for subsidized student beer.
The questions raised by this recent rulemaking on the Affordable Health Care Act are on so many different levels.
The Catholic Church has a teaching on birth control. To the world outside of those who promulgate as well as accept that teaching, it is the Church that is failing to recognize the modern world, much as people outside of Islam are critical of Sharia Law as being a Medieval relic in the modern world. Much as the Catholic Church regards birth control as a moral wrong, the broader society tends to view opposition to birth control, not simply as a quirk of a conservative religious sect, but also as a moral wrong, one infringing on the rights of women, much as Sharia is viewed by non-Muslims as infringing on the rights of women.
On the other hand, the United States has a centuries-old, perhaps a founding tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism, that we accept Puritans and Quakers and Christian Scientists and Muslims and Jews and Catholics and Latter-Day Saints and Evangelical Christians for who they are, that each can give free expression to their moral teaching, provided that the laws and traditions of the broader American society are observed and respected.
The reason I was told that we needed the Affordable Health Care act was that we already mandated that people could not be turned away from emergency rooms for lack of insurance or lack of money, and we needed to mandate insurance coverage so the health care system would not collapse under its own financial weight. My response is fine, solve the emergency room problem by providing some governmental assistance for catastrophic and financially ruinious medical conditions. But let us move the system more in the direction where people pay out-of-pocket for more routine medical expenses to bring market discipline to bear on runaway health costs.
But instead, the Affordable Health Care Act is mandating everything under the sun be covered by insurance. And somewhere the Hyde Amendment on no Federal funding for abortions, something having much broader support than just Catholics, went by the wayside. And now this.
The way I see it, President Obama and Secretary Sibelius regard the Catholic position on birth control as a Medieval relic like requiring women to cover themselves head-to-toe in public, and in light of state mandates for insurance coverage, as a no-brainer. The American Catholic Bishops, on the other hand, decided with unanimity to draw a line in the sand. It is one thing to realize the realities of birth control in the modern world and to not form an Inquisition to start torturing married couples and mainly women into confessions regarding their use of same. It is another thing for a Federal mandate that Catholic institutions pay for birth control procedures, including forms of birth control that are believed in cases to result in spontaneous abortions.
The Catholic Bishops believe that if they give ground on the Federal mandate, this will remove the last vestige of any basis to adhere to Catholic teaching on this matter. The Obama people believe the same, and say good riddance to what they consider to be a moral wrong on the part of the Church.
President Obama is not giving any ground with his risible “accomodation.” The Catholic Bishops are also not giving any ground, with at least one high-ranking bishop publicly threatening to dismantle the Catholic hospitals serving 1/6th of the population. There are going to be serious political consequences to each side, both in the case of sticking to their guns and also to the case if they cave. If the President gets reelected and gets his way, the Catholic Bishops either carry out the threat to go nuclear on their hospitals, or they suffer a severe loss of credibility.
And then there is the dimension that the Catholic Bishops are not Libertarian/Right-Wingers. For better or for worse, they have interpreted the same system of Catholic morality as one forbidding artificial birth control as also one supporting a government takeover of health care. Hence they are part of the pro-Affordable Health Care Act coalition, not because they are leftists or Socialists, but because they have reasoned their membership in the coalition from the same moral code that has them against birth control.
I guess ol’ Scott Brown seeking reelection in Massachussetts, without much help from us Right Wingers, had the right spin. Ted Kennedy was against a mandate for birth control in all of the incarnations of Health Care Reform, and so am I.
Which brings us to, what is President Obama thinking? Why is he waging the battle of all politically correct persons against the antiquated birth control ideology of the Catholic Church now, with a Supreme Court case looming on the Individual Mandate and his own reelection not a shoo-in, even by the estimation of the Liberal Left? Why is he dissing a major coalition partner in getting his signature Affordable Health Care Law enacted.
Why is he doing this, given his track record with getting the Olympics to Chicago, getting China to agree to limits on CO2, getting Congress to agree on even modest tax increases? Why is he picking this fight?
And the Catholic Bishops have as much endorsed the Romney candidacy as they are able to with their religious tax-exempt status, as they must know by now the Mr. Obama is incapable of backing down. Are they prepared to go nuclear on the Catholic hospitals? In public life, you don’t go around making threats that you are not prepared to carry out. But it is said that some of the high-ranking Catholic Bishops are shrewd political players, and Mr. Obama seems to be carried by other dynamics than him having a single political bone in his body.
So with respect to Ms. Fluke, the proper response should not be to impune her morals. In the spirit of the immortal words of W F Buckley, “Cancel your own g-d subscription”, our response should be “Purchase your own contraceptive meds”, nothing more, nothing less.
Because Obama is desperate for the “women’s vote” and is therefore willing to throw the Catholics under the church bus.
Could be, but then it could be he’s incompetent, a mysteriously praised and honored mediocrity who has been given supreme executive power, which is the plot of a 30’s screwball comedy, but isn’t.
I would watch that movie, and laugh. What I am watching now makes me ill.
Excellent comment, Paul. 🙂
I think Obama’s position on this issue reflects the fact that he lives in the bubble and rarely listens to regular people, much less understands them. What few advisors he does listen to live in bubbles of their own, representing the politically correct circles in San Francisco, Manhattan, Long Island, a few Ivy League schools, and leftist think tanks and advocacy organizations.
If the government is going to hand out free birth control pills, eventually it will dictate what kind of pills and and practices women should use to better control costs and risks. Feminist liberals will discover that a lot of women who got conned into the free system lost their sexual independence by supporting and joining a centralized reproductive bureaucracy where Catholics and Baptists have a lot of political say. If these women thought their boyfriends were flaky, what will they think of having Congress calling the shots in their bedrooms?
It is a slippery slope from here are some free BC pills to you all must take these pills until you are allowed to stop.
I still haven’t heard or read a sound argument for the federal government haivng a role in providing free contraceptive. Those in favor of it tend to use eugenic population control arguments.
The thing is — this is a moot point. It already does. Contraceptives are cheap if not “free” already. This is a manufactured political issue for the campaign season to distract us from the real issues, win the unenthusiastic “women’s vote”, etc.
Fair enough Titus, I agree it should be moot. I’ve never seen a problem with the availability of contraceptives. I met plenty of co-eds in college that had a drawer full of condoms because they got them for free.
But those arguing for it are acting like they need to be free in every teenagers drawer. I think those people need to be asked “why?”. Eventually, you’ll get them to their eugenics line of thought, and then you can slap them with their own comments.
You’re too optimistic. Any leftie old enough to understand the concept of eugenics is simply going to toe the party line — President Axelrod hath commanded his minions to fight on this nonsensical hill, so they do. For the younger set, this remains a non-issue because no real person has trouble acquiring contraceptives — they need only remember to use them.
All respect I once had for Newt has been lost with this comment. If he had just said “prostitute” I could have forgiven it, as he would have been making a technical argument, not a judgement call.. but apparently Newt hates women who like sex – which is the only time you should use the word “slut” – and that’s not okay with me.
Newt? I think you are confusing Newt with Rush.
I must have been tired.. forget I said anything, I never had any respect for Rush.
She’s no slut, but to call her a prostitute is an insult to hookers who put in an honest day’s work.
I have a lot to say about this issue that most of you would just dismiss as liberal nonsense, so I’ll skip it.
But I’ll mention the following, because I believe it is non-partisan:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill
and
http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/16/8824376-1-in-3-teens-go-on-pill-for-non-contraceptive-reasons
(The article is about teens and women between the ages of 15 and 44 – it is not just about teens.)
I have a lot to say about this issue that most of you would just dismiss as liberal nonsense, so I’ll skip it.
Excellent decision.
As to your links, these are reasons for the person to take the medicine, not for society to pay for the person to take the medicine. My view on such things is that if something is valuable enough to you, then you will pay for it and society needs not assist.
The only point I wanted to make, amid a lot of disrespect toward women in general and one woman in particular, was that when we are discussing who should pay for birth control pills, we needn’t be talking about sex and sexual practices — we can just have a debate about who should pay for medicine, and health care in general. You and Wodun seem happy to do that, so have at it! I”m going to abstain.
I do wonder if employees of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who are not themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses have had an analogous problem with insurance coverage for blood transfusions.
Bob:
If they do have a problem getting coverage for blood transfusions, they can go find a different job. Or buy their own insurance. Or pay for the transfusion.
Should YOU pay for it? That what you see to be suggesting.
I can see why you’d want to redirect the focus to “other reasons to take the pill”. A federal mandate for contraception coverage places women’s personal sexual choices squarely in the arena of public debate. You’re the ones dragging sex out of the private sphere in this situation. As uncomfortable with that truth as you probably are, don’t expect others to flock to your defense. You’ve chosen what’s more important. At least have the guts to live with it.
Ok, fine. Lets talk about sex. And lets not talk about the health ramifications of getting pregnant, lets just focus on what you want to focus on: Sex is fun.
Running is also fun. If Sandra Fluke is a prostitute, then the guy who gets a knee replacement courtesy of his employer’s health insurance plan is a professional athlete.
I don’t think so. If you do, fine, but politically, this is a loser of an issue. Much better to focus on religious freedom – that’s my free political advice.
But if you’d rather take on the health care payment debate, that’s ok too, just do it without degrading women. One strategy to avoid misogyny is to not be a misogynist. This seems to be difficult for some of you. Another complementary strategy is stop focusing on sex. Here’s how:
Birth control pills for the purpose of contraception and knee surgeries are both examples of elective (unnecessary) medicine that allows people to live life to the fullest. So stop focusing on the hot button topic of sex, and instead just imagine a health care plan that will keep employees alive but relegated to a wheel chair unless they can pay for their own knee surgeries. All the same arguments about who should pay and who should be forced to pay will still apply.
—–
I see this example of federal interference between an employer and an employee as not particularly different than the minimum wage, except that it has a religious dimension which makes it interesting. But I don’t want to spend the weekend arguing about it — I really just wanted to speak up about the disparagement of women. You can defend the use of words like “femmegogue”, but I think it just drags a good debate about health care insurance and freedom of religion down into the muck.
politically, this is a loser of an issue. Yes, for the Dems it is. People are really getting sick and tired of being told they have to pay for another person’s shit. Especially something like contraception. Sex is an optional act, especially for unwed people.
People are absolutely swearing furious about this at work but the MSM is deliberately missing it.
Thats fine, they aren’t going to miss it next November.
Bob-1: The federal government should REQUIRE ALL health insurance plans to provide no-deductable, no-co-pay coverage of knee replacement surgery. The consumer shall have no say in the matter; it’s there whether you want it or not.
That’s a winner BOB!
And lets not talk about the health ramifications of getting pregnant
You sure are NOT in favor of that. With free birth control for all, why would anyone care? You’ve completely removed the incentive to investigate it. You’ve replaced a market-based insurance system where consumers are encouraged to shop around and educate themselves about what choices they have with a government-forced product that is designed by bureaucrats.
Congratulations.
“Birth control pills for the purpose of contraception and knee surgeries are both examples of elective (unnecessary) medicine that allows people to live life to the fullest.”
Hehe, I’ll be sure to tell my dad with two knee replacements that they were both elective and unnecessary procedures on par with taking birth control. I’m sure he’ll get a kick out of that.
Why? We already did that during Obamacare. You honestly think that’s a more fruitful discussion? I think everyone here is pretty solid in their positions on that one.
Bob-1 raises an interesting question.
If a Catholic employer refused to pay for an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, then Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, because given the dangers of transfusions, you don’t transfuse anyone unless you are saving their life.
But why isn’t birth control considered in the same elective category as plastic surgery for a person not suffering from deformity, refractive surgery for vision — near sightedness and having to wear heavy glasses could be considered a medical burden — and so on? In light of the availibility of 99% effective barrier contraception from items used in combination from any Wal-Mart?
No Bob-1,
there is no general disrespect towards ‘women’, by anyone. Just because I think ONE woman may be a (enter that ‘s’ word here), doesn’t mean all women are (enter that ‘s’ word here). I’ll give Rush the same clearance.
The opinion of many is that this particular woman has openly stated openly, on a microphone in a Congressional Hearing, for the entire world to hear, that her sexual activities, during a three year time span will require her to spend $3000 for contraceptives, which brings many to a CONCLUSION that she’s ‘s1utty’.
On to the matter of ‘defining” (enter that ‘s’ word here).
Misters Merr1am and Webster define (enter that ‘s’ word here) as follows.
1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman
2
a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute
b : a saucy girl : minx
I think this is WHERE people, even Rush, shall we say, got the idea that she’s a (enter that ‘s’ word here). For anyone to ‘need’ $3000 worth of b control over 3 years, ‘implies’ a certain promiscuity. And, BTW, that $3K is a LOT of b control.
I found birth control pills online in a number of places for $45 for 3 months, or a quarter. But it’s $32 a month, if bought by the month. I’ll even go there for the math. 36 x $32 is $1152. I’ll add $10 a month for shipping, $1152 + $360 = $1452.
$3000 – $1452 = $1548.
Being a lawyer in training I’m betting she wants to be doubly careful to not have children, she’s taking pills AND using condoms. Even if she’s paying a high price for her condoms, let’s say $3 per, then over that 3 years, she’s buying / bought over 500 condoms. 516 to be exact. Of course, if you buy them in a big box at Wally World, they’re as cheap as 45 cents per ‘pop’. Which is SEVERAL times per day, 7 days per week, for three years.
THAT’S definitely s1utty behavior Bob. But let’s ass-u-me the 516 number now.
516 sexual encounters over 3 years is roughly, Ms. Fluke having s3xual intercourse every other day. That would be, for a young married person a pretty good run, every other day for 3 years. But MS or MISS Fluke is NOT married. To many, many, many Americans, someone who is UNMARRIED having s3x FREQUENTLY for ANY period, is defined as PROMISCUITY.
Bump that s3xual frequency up to every other day, it’s even more promiscuous.
Once again, Misters Merr1am and Webster define S1UT as follows.
1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman
2
a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute
b : a saucy girl : minx
Personally, I quit caring which girls were or were not s1utty several years before I got married. But, like most Adults, I’m still pretty sure I know a slut when I see one or when a I hear about this kind of activity from an unmarried female.
ALL my doubts are removed when the female in question openly admits on a microphone in a Congressional Hearing, for the entire world to hear, that her s3xual activities, during a three year time span will average having s3x MORE often than the average married person.
I think Rush has shown a lack of tact. He’s shown a lack of scope even, thinking this wouldn’t go nuke-ya-lur. But as far as I can see, his definition is dead on with that of the professional lexicographers at Merr1am-Webster.
And if the 516 is a LOW number, and the actual, 24 pack, Wally World low price shows she was having s3x 3 or 4 or 5 times a day, she’s absolutely a s1ut! There IS no other term that would cover it in my experience.
Except of course, prostitute, as Rush said.
Your comment would be more relevant is she was talking about health issues as the main reason but she wasn’t. She wants free contraception and she wants me to pay for it. Was Rush misogynistic? No, she put herself in the public sphere and demanded free contraception so she wouldn’t get pregnant from casual sex. Now if he had used the C word like Bill Maher did about Sarah Palin or treated an under age minor as a slut in a joke like Dave Letterman did with Willow Palin, well you might have something. Most of the disrespect towards women comes from left wing pundits and Democrats. Knee replacements and contraception, one of these is not like the other.
“No, she put herself in the public sphere and demanded free contraception so she wouldn’t get pregnant from casual sex.”
Well I’d remove the word casual – that’s an assumption
However……according to “The Washington Post reported Fluke entered Georgetown Law well aware that the school’s insurance plan did not cover contraception, only to spend the next three years lobbying the school to change its policy.”
From the Daily Caller:
“Fluke attended Cornell University from 1999-2003, where she received a B.S. in Policy Analysis & Management and Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.”
So this isn’t her first rodeo.
But to me the key bit of info is that – according to the Post now – she entered Georgetown Law School KNOWING that the health plan didn’t cover contraception. And she wants to change that.
Well she’s welcome to try but GLS is just as welcome to offer the health care plans they want.
If she doesn’t like it she can go to a different law school.
None of that provides a rationale for why the government needs to hand out BC from cradle to grave. This isn’t about banning BC, it is about the government forcing employeers to pay foril it, preventing people from choosing health insurance plans that offer what they want, and telling businesses what products to sell.
The head of HHS said BC is cheaper than having a baby so it saves money. Saves money for who? The government that will be subsidizing it. These are the arguments of government run health care and we would not even be having them if it wasn’t for the freedom killing Obamacare.
I’m sure the liberals would prefer the government hand out sterilization anyway..
If I’m going to pay for someone else’s abortion, maybe I should kick in a bit of extra money and pay for their sterilization (ok, sterilization might be out, but one of the long-term contraceptives should suffice).
I really don’t care about people’s personal life style choices but as soon as I have to pay for it, I have an opinion and recommendations on changes to their behavior to cost me less money.
I detest Obamacare for making everyone’s personal life style my business =(
You *already* have to pay for everyone else’s life style choices with regard to healh and health care – most notably, through tax-supported ER visits, some of which turn into long term hospital admissions, surgery, etc. We aren’t going to deny care to people who can’t pay, so you’re on the hook. What activities do you want to prohibit and what privacy do you want to invade in order to lower your costs?
BOB! You’re RIGHT! Single-payer is the way to go! Thank you for so eloquently and concisely making the case. I’m converted.
As an aside, how can you live here when we still have this antiquated, troglodyte thing called insurance? Doesn’t it drive you crazy?
Wodun implied Obamacare is different from the status quo, and I’m saying it isn’t: anyone might end up in an ER, and ER or no ER, almost anyone might end up with medical bills in excess of their ability to pay. I’m self-employed, pay for my own health insurance, naturally I chose a high deductible catastrophic plan, but I worry about catastrophes that my insurance won’t cover. Clearly Wodun ought to babysit me to at least reduce the chances of me getting into certain kinds of trouble. He seems ok, maybe it will be fun. Sadly, there are expensive medical problems a person can have which Wodun can’t protect us both from, so he might end up paying for me in the end anyway.
If you don’t want to be babysat, then join me. I’m moving to Canada. They don’t have ANY babysitters there.
ER visits are a bad example. Not every visit goes unpaid by the patient and not everyone uses the ER as their primary care. Obamacare includes everyone not just a few outliers.
I don’t think I would make a good babysitter if the goal was to limit risky behavior =p
Fishing is the sport with the highest rates of eye injuries afterall.
Why do you think it’s my responsibility either way?
wodun,
it should be ‘whom’. …saves money for whom.
Saves money for who? The government that will be subsidizing it.
It’s the fewer people, and the right people, mentality of eugenics. As I saw someone note on a news program, if HHS got their way, who would be around in the future to pay for this massive entitlement?
Eugenics is the word that instantly came to mind when I saw the headline. Sibelius just wants to clean up the trash. Not good – what will she want to do next, get rid of the useless old people?
If I pay a prostitute, at least I get to have sex with her.
Ms. Fluke wants me to pay so she can have sex with others.
I suppose it’s selfish of me to be rather lukewarm to that idea.
Ms. Fluke wants me to pay so she can have sex with others.
Where do you get that? She wants the private health insurance plan (that she pays for) to cover prescription birth control pills the same way it covers prescription drugs for diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, or any other health concern.
Yes, birth control would not be an issue for women if they all were celibate. Likewise, anyone who smokes, drinks, eats an unhealthy diet, neglects to exercise, rides a motorcycle, or operates power tools is asking his insurer to cover the health care implications of those choices. And Ms. Fluke’s plan is happy to cover those choices. If you drink yourself to the point of addiction, they’ll pay for a treatment program. If you smoke until you get lung cancer, they’ll pay for the chemo and surgery. If you cut off your finger with a table saw, they’ll pay to sew it back on. If you drink a six-pack of beer and drive your motorcycle into a telephone pole, they’ll pay for the ambulance and the surgery and the physical therapy.
But if you’re a woman, single or married, who wants to have sex without getting pregnant, that’s when Georgetown decides to get picky about personal choices.
If it really was a “private” health insurance plan, there wouldn’t be any issue here. But it most definitely is not. If she wanted a policy that did not cover contraceptives, she is SOL. If she doesn’t want to pay for someone else’s contraceptives, she is SOL.
And Ms. Fluke’s plan is happy to cover those choices.
They don’t have a choice. The government requires that they do. So their “happiness” is an abstract concept that has no basis in reality.
Like most private insurance policies, they freely chose to cover all those things even before the government had any opinion on the matter. It’s only the government’s position on covering birth control that bothers them. They never minded “subsidizing” all sorts of dubious personal choices through their health plan, but they draw the line at women having non-reproductive sex.
Actually gender doesn’t enter into it. They don’t want to cover condoms either. It’s you anti-choice folks on the left who are all up in arms over women’s rights. I hope you’re happy with the resulting focus on women’s personal sexual choices. I’m sure that’s going down real well with a large section of the electorate.
Of course gender enters into it. Preventing pregnancy is not a health concern for men. Georgetown will cover standard preventative care for any health issue that affects men, but won’t cover a major health concern of women.
I will let you in on a dirty little secret from the hetero male perspective. Men are concerned with proventing pregnancy. They have massive financial and psychological incentives to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Well, Wodun, a lot less than they used to a hundred years ago, with all the wonderful consequences for families and society. Thanks, liberals. Or progressives. Or whatever the next word is that you appropriate to label yourselves after the current one becomes tainted by being associated with you.
Jim writes:
“Likewise, anyone who smokes, drinks, eats an unhealthy diet, neglects to exercise, rides a motorcycle, or operates power tools is asking his insurer to cover the health care implications of those choices. And Ms. Fluke’s plan is happy to cover those choices…………But if you’re a woman, single or married, who wants to have sex without getting pregnant, that’s when Georgetown decides to get picky about personal choices.”
You do not see the GLARING difference? One has to do with health problems….one has to do with not wanting to get pregnant.
You cannot see the difference?
Or are you like Obama and think that pregnancy is a problem?
Then you write:
“Like most private insurance policies, they freely chose
……..”
YES freely chose. That’s the key issue here.
“…. to cover all those things even before the government had any opinion on the matter. It’s only the government’s position on covering birth control that bothers them. ”
That’s because the government should not have a position on this.
“…They never minded “subsidizing” all sorts of dubious personal choices through their health plan, but they draw the line at women having non-reproductive sex.”
I reject your unspoken premise:
The law school and the insurance companies are private entities. They get to decide to do whatever they want to do.
The government has NO BUSINESS dictating anything.
And then you write:
“Of course gender enters into it. Preventing pregnancy is not a health concern for men. Georgetown will cover standard preventative care for any health issue that affects men, but won’t cover a major health concern of women.”
Oh really? Tell me, do you know whether or not the Georgetown health plan covers vasectomies?
I personally do not know. But before you can make that statement you need to know.
think that pregnancy is a problem
It’s a major health issue, and a major problem if you don’t want to be pregnant.
The government has NO BUSINESS dictating anything.
So Georgetown should be able to offer a health care plan that doesn’t cover vaccinations?
It would be better if Georgetown, and other employers and schools, were out of the insurance business altogether, so that individuals could choose their policies rather than having those institutions make the choice. The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is a big step in that direction.
Tell me, do you know whether or not the Georgetown health plan covers vasectomies?
No, they don’t. But men don’t die or suffer ill health for lack of a vasectomy, which is why vasectomies aren’t considered routine preventive care.
“It’s a major health issue, and a major problem if you don’t want to be pregnant.”
Do you know the difference between health insurance and health care? I doubt that you do. I see you left that one out in your response.
Insurance companies give YOU a method of mitigating risks. They charge based upon actuarials and you decide if the cost is worth the protection. It’s a free transaction. Everyone wins.
IF the insurance company calculated correctly, they will end up with a little money after paying out when people get sick. They take a risk too.
But BC pills are not a risk…and that is the key difference here. You ignore it.
Covering BC pills is a guaranteed pay out. If you have your way, they will give money out just for the asking. AS opposed to calculating the chances that they will have to pay out for scarlet fever or heart surgery.
“So Georgetown should be able to offer a health care plan that doesn’t cover vaccinations?”
Absolutely. However if they did, no one would buy their insurance and they’d go out of business.
“It would be better if Georgetown, and other employers and schools, were out of the insurance business altogether, so that individuals could choose their policies rather than having those institutions make the choice.”
But they can! No one is FORCED to accept the Georgetown insurance policy. They can buy their own.
“No, they don’t. But men don’t die or suffer ill health for lack of a vasectomy,”
Oh please. This is not the Dark Ages. Additionally, health insurance does not exist to mitigate risk of death – that’s what life insurance is for.
“…..which is why vasectomies aren’t considered routine preventive care.”
Ahhh but that’s not what you said is it? What you SAID is:
“but they draw the line at women having non-reproductive sex.”
and
“But if you’re a woman, single or married, who wants to have sex without getting pregnant,…”
YOU made it a sex-related issue and not health. When faced with the destruction of that argument you move the goalposts and now try to draw a picture of millions of women dying in horrid manners.
And once again the government has no business dictating what insurance companies will and will not cover. The only function of government is to assure the means of redressing contracts violation and have a decent body of contract law to protect consumers who’ve made a contract with insurance companies.
But we do die and suffer ill health from lack of Nutrition I demand my health insurance to pay for my food costs . IT PREVENTIVE Care, what am I paying them for if there not keeping me healthy.
and walking too much must not be good for the knees or hips so demand a segway to be provided too.
Well Jim, if I’m in the same pool she is, the cost is figured into my premium. Obamacare will dictate coverage and it’s the same thing. I don’t care how you try to gloss it over, she wants coverage for something her plan doesn’t want to cover. She is free to find other insurance. But, noooooo, behaving like the good statist she is, she wants the government to make them pay for it, whether they want to or not.
Wrong. She wanted the HHS mandate, which requires *ALL* insurers–including self-insuring entities–to cover the entire cost of contraception. In other words, she wants Catholics to pay for her birth control.
Re the “slut” epithet:
I saw a comment elsewhere that said, “What else would you call a woman who is so sexually active that she can’t afford all the contraception she needs?”
Imagine she is married.
Bob, she is NOT married, she is a student paying 60k a year in tuition and room+board(or getting grant money) at a tier 1 law school begging for a subsidy for her recrational purposes. It is really that simply, please don’t try and make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Imagine she is a Velociraptor for all I care..
She isn’t advocating solely on her own behalf. She is advocating for other people, including married women. But I wanted to answer Rickl’s question. He asked about “a woman”, and my answer is that a married woman who can’t afford birth control pills wouldn’t be called a slut.
begging for a subsidy for her recrational purposes
Georgetown uses her premium dollars to cover treatment for students who choose to take all sorts of risks with their health. They can smoke, drink, do illegal drugs, and juggle chainsaws, and Georgetown will use her premium dollars to pay the resulting medical bills. But if she wants to have sex without getting pregnant, like most adult females, well now she’s asking for far too much.
Right, because evil Georgetown is denying her contraceptives. In fact, she risks getting arrested if they are found in her possession.
And I can guess what your opinion would be on Georgetown being allowed to offer different insurance policies with different coverages and deductibles to account for smoking, drinking and juggling chainsaws.
(kind of funny how it works both ways huh?)
like most adult females, well now she’s asking for far too much.
Because obviously she or her partner cannot possibly afford a pack of condoms on their own dime. Yeah, she is asking far too much in this instance.
Hey Jim, crime is a danger to my health, JAMA said so. My health insurance should pay for my pistol, training and martial arts training too. Crime is a threat to my health and I deserved to be covered.
Buy my shit or I am going to raise hell!
Because obviously she or her partner cannot possibly afford a pack of condoms on their own dime.
By your standard there’s no actual need for lots of what health insurance covers. Everyone can afford to eat only healthy foods, never drink to excess or use illegal drugs, exercise diligently, brush and floss daily, never exceed the speed limit, avoid all risky activities, and always use sunscreen. And yet, most people don’t do all those things, and we expect health insurance to cover the health care expenses that result. You’re subjecting Ms. Fluke’s choices to a sort of scrutiny that is never applied to others’ choices.
And I can guess what your opinion would be on Georgetown being allowed to offer different insurance policies with different coverages and deductibles to account for smoking, drinking and juggling chainsaws.
Georgetown is allowed to do that, as far as I know, but they show no interest in doing so, because they have no general objection to subsidizing expensive, unhealthy choices. They have a specific objection to paying for birth control, and it has nothing to do with the price tag.
Tell me, Jim, are you aware of the difference between health *insurance* and health *care*?
Everyone can afford to eat only healthy foods, never drink to excess or use illegal drugs, exercise diligently, brush and floss daily, never exceed the speed limit, avoid all risky activities, and always use sunscreen. And yet, most people don’t do all those things, and we expect health insurance to cover the health care expenses that result. You’re subjecting Ms. Fluke’s choices to a sort of scrutiny that is never applied to others’ choices.
Jim, in law there is a concept know as the reasonable man defense. Eating and other activities you list are sliders on a grey scale. Sex is a binary choice, either you have it or not. A resonable man will not see mandated contraception as a reasonable imposition on the risk pool. As I said earlier, at my office, even the granola-munchers see the folly in this concept. The lline has to be drawn somewhere.
Like I said, we can carry your line of thought to the extreme. Where is my training and weapon?
A reasonable man will note that the vast majority of women have sex at times when they do not want to get pregnant, that pregnancy carries serious health consequences including risk of death, and that therefore pregnancy prevention should be part of routine medical care, just like flu shots and pap smears.
Where is my training and weapon?
If you can convince the medical profession that they should be standard preventive care, you should get them. Birth control pills aren’t “extreme”; they’re routine.
I need a new keyboard and mouse so my fingers don’t hurt. I can only ise a razor mouse or a g something keyboard. Remember it is for my health.
Posing as a reasonable man, Jim notes: “pregnancy carries serious health consequences including risk of death, and that therefore pregnancy prevention should be part of routine medical care, just like flu shots and pap smears.”
I hate to break it to him, but flu and cervical cancer are diseases. Pregnancy is not.
Danae, There are chronic conditions in which pregnancy would be unsafe for the mother or the baby or both. If a woman with such a condition doesn’t want to choose celibacy until menopause, some kind of pregnancy prevention is called for as a health measure. Additionally, as I noted above, many women take “birth control” pills for health-related reasons rather than for contraception.
Bob, no one is saying she can’t or shouldn’t take BC. They are saying the state and its citizens should not have to pay for it. Big difference.
They are also saying an employer should be able to choose what benefits a health care plan offers and not have the government dictate to them what they must pay for.
Georgetown uses her premium dollars to cover treatment for students who choose to take all sorts of risks with their health.
Treatment is the key word. Jim, are you saying Georgetown doesn’t cover pregnancies or crabs?
They can smoke, drink, do illegal drugs, and juggle chainsaws, and Georgetown will use her premium dollars to pay the resulting medical bills.
But Georgetown doesn’t buy the cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, or chainsaws. Jim, you are asking Georgetown to buy these things.
But if she wants to have sex without getting pregnant, like most adult females, well now she’s asking for far too much.
If she wants to have sex, do we have to buy her a bed too? Maybe she wants some KY jelly, do we need to buy it also? What other stuff does the public need to provide her for her sexual desires? Should we provide her with a free vibrator so she doesn’t even need a second person?
Wodun, I was replying to Danae’s argument that “flu and cervical cancer are diseases. Pregnancy is not”.
So, when you reply to me by saying “no one is saying she can’t or shouldn’t take BC”, how is that relevant to Danae’s argument or my retort? It sounds to me like you’re having the other, more sensible conversation about health care, and not the silly conversation which treats birth control pills differently from other health care because they involve sex and pregnancy. If you’re going to insist on being sensible, you’ll have to do it in some other conversation!
Nuts, that should have read “health care insurance”, rather than “health care”.
Bob-1, when pregnancy presents a lifelong threat to a woman’s life, the usual and less failure-prone treatment is tube ligation, which is routinely covered by health insurance.
I don’t think many of us oppose women taking birth control pills. One issue is whether other people should be forced to finance or dispense birth control pills or devices contrary to their religious convictions. Another is why this student, Ms. Fluke, and her ilk are unwilling to take advantage of the condoms offered free of charge at the vast majority of institutions of higher learning in this country. I’ve been office coordinator for the Student Health office at a state college in a very red state, and although I was not in a position to know to whom the condoms were dispensed, I do know that cartons of them moved onto and off of our dispensary shelves rapidly enough to warm any sexual recreationist’s heart.
If you’re going to insist on being sensible, you’ll have to do it in some other conversation!
Bob, your desire to conflate Danae’s comments that pregnancy rarely causes fatal problems for the mother isn’t sensible. No where has anyone suggested pregnancy not be covered by reasonable health insurance or provided freely by hospitals if a person can not afford such insurance. I’m sure Georgetown even covers it.
Bob, if you want to be taken seriously, try fairly considering what other people are writing. So let me state the argument that others are making: Why must others be forced to financially support Ms. Fluke’s sexual desires? Why can’t she take personal responsibility for her own birth control?
Imagine: A prestigious Islamic-affiliated university in Washington, D.C. offers a student health plan to Muslim and non-Muslim students alike. The plan doesn’t cover skin cancer treatment for women, because the university does not want to subsidize females going outside without a burka. A Protestant female student mounts a campaign to change the policy, and admits to sunbathing. Congress passes a law saying that private health insurance policies can’t deny cancer treatment on the basis of gender. The university protests, the GOP presidential candidates decry this assault on religious freedom, Mitt Romney says requiring skin cancer treatment for women is worse than the religious intolerance that drove his grandparents out of the country, and Rush Limbaugh attacks the shameless student’s sun worshipping hedonism, demanding videos of her in a bikini, since (by his reckoning) he’s paying for her self-indulgence.
Congress passes a law saying that private health insurance policies can’t deny cancer treatment on the basis of gender.
Deny? Jim, I think you’ve posted the single dumbest item in your history. Quite an accomplishment.
In other news: Amrica’s stupply of hay and straw had been drawn down to dangerously low levls. Domestic herbavores are now in imminent danger of starvation thanks to one particularly large, absurd strawman argument by Jim today….
No doubt. I couldn’t make it through 2 sentences and immediately scrolled down. LoL
I imagine if that happened that the left would go into full on religious bigotry against muslims similar to what is below now beong about catholics now. That is unless the right went after the muslim university, in that case cries of islamohpbia would ring from blog to network and the virtue of sharia law proclaimed in every venue and the university’s decisions being defended.
Congrats, Jim. You’ve just constructed a hypothetical that has nothing to do with anything related to this story other than one of the actors. You might as well say:
“What if a prestigious, self-insuring Jedi Academy on Coruscant excluded flu shots from coverage because even viruses are infused with the force? A female Padawan…yada, yada, yada…Rush Limbaugh…”
Haha, yea what if you find out you have this really high mitochlorian count but you just don’t want to deal with the stress and responsibility of wielding the force. I demand mitochlorian control pills be free and accessible for everyone!
Imagine: Jim makes a sensible argument.
No, I’m sorry, that’s just beyond the realm of fiction or fantasy…
“So here we have someone who probably says that she just wants to keep the Evil Republicans out of her bedroom and body while at the same time is eager to invite Uncle Sam in for a threesome, as long as he brings the Trojans.”
That’s why I call “liberals” and “progressives” and other varieties of tax-happy coercion junkies “State-shtuppers.”
Like so many other issues with the left, they want to live their libertine life style and not pay for it. At issue is not the freedom to buy or use birth control, but who pays. The left can win this only by confusing the latter as the former.
Hmm, I can tell conservatives and libertarians are very good at ignoring political bait and irrelevant distractions…
Ha! Too true…
No we know whey George asked the question.
JournOlists should have to declare their allegiance and who they are working for just like they do disclaimers about a company that funds them that they also report on.
A propos Trojans: beware Greeks bearing gifts…
Also, it’s interesting to note that some red states still legislate which bodily orifice can be used for what activity, depending on the gender of the participants.