Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'


captain morgan
#421
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Insurance pays for prescriptions, prescriptions are part of healthcare. You don't understand this?

Let's see... Gasoline is necessary to fill my car in order to get to the hospital - ergo - gasoline is a part of healthcare and should be covered in my health insurance.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Right, you mean in your fantasy land where someone else with the same insurance provider claiming an accident will put my insurance rates up next year. You can have it all to yourself.

How long have you been out of school?

.. And yes, if a hurricane ravages your community except your house, everyone;s rates will go up, including yours.

You'll learn this once you actually have to buy insurance.

Note: I expect that your childish response will have something to do with "b..b..but, I don't pay health insurance OR it's never gone up"
This is what I mean by grow up.


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

According to you.

Nope, according to damn near everyone out there.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Ahh, more insane suggestions from someone who shouldn't be giving anyone health advice. Hysterectomies are invasive surgeries that drastically change the functioning of a woman's body, and surgeries represent real risks themselves. It's unethical to perform surgeries when they aren't needed, especially when there are other less invasive treatment options available.

B..b..b..but, isn't this about women's health and science and all?

On a side note: Wouldn't a science-guy such as yourself agree that artificially altering the hormonal levels in a women's body drastically change the functioning of a women's body.

Hint: They lose the reproductive capacity for that cycle. - That's NOT a drastic change?

Note: I see that you've also ignored the link that gerryh provided on the risks and health impacts of that kind of contraceptive method - how convenient for you.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No, not like. Exactly. We've been over this. Honour killings. Polygamy. Forced Marriage. Not legal.

Wow.. They condone honour killings, polygamy and forced marriage at Georgetown University?

Sorry, but...



Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Your standard BS reply when you have nothing to say. Full circle in more ways then one I guess, with you and Limbaugh both stumbling into Godwin's Law.

Kinda like you when you need a cartoon for a crutch for a losing argument.
 
Tonington
#422
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Let's see... Gasoline is necessary to fill my car in order to get to the hospital - ergo - gasoline is a part of healthcare and should be covered in my health insurance.

So prescriptions are not a part of healthcare? You don't have prescriptions covered in your health plan? You're ridiculous...

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post


Kinda like you when you need a cartoon for a crutch for a losing argument.

I don't need a cartoon for my argument. As I said, my argument is that the government can and does limit religious practices through the laws they impose, and that this preventative health mandate is a good thing. It serves a secular purpose, which is one of the tests a law must pass if it will impede religious freedoms.

The rest is me responding to you...

The cartoon is just humour, and it made me think of you.
 
captain morgan
#423
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So prescriptions are not a part of healthcare? You don't have prescriptions covered in your health plan? You're ridiculous...

Sure they are, but the prescriptions don't just walk themselves to the pharmacy, do they?

Come to think of it, medical students are a vital part of (future) healthcare. Maybe they can get their tuition and fees covered in their health insurance?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

As I said, my argument is that the government can and does limit religious practices through the laws they impose, and that this preventative health mandate is a good thing. It serves a secular purpose, which is one of the tests a law must pass if it will impede religious freedoms.

Your 'argument' is entirely unrelated to Georgetown University and completely irrelevant in terms of Fluke wanting insurance coverage for her sex life.

If you're looking to extrapolate some kind of parallel, think about using something that is 1/2 way relevant, m'kay.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The rest is me responding to you...

The cartoon is just humour, and it made me think of you.

Funny cartoon... What's even funnier is that you are unable to formulate any kind of response to the comment about the pill 'drastically altering' the functioning of a woman's body.

You really stuck your foot in your mouth on that one.
 
Tonington
+1
#424
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Sure they are, but the prescriptions don't just walk themselves to the pharmacy, do they?

How is that in any way relevant to your contention that University staff as well as medical staff cannot be involved with the delivery of healthcare? You're just plain wrong.

Quote:

Your 'argument' is entirely unrelated to Georgetown University and completely irrelevant in terms of Fluke wanting insurance coverage for her sex life.

BINGO. Jesus I think you might get it after all... It's you that wants to focus on Fluke's sex life.

Quote:

Funny cartoon... What's even funnier is that you are unable to formulate any kind of response to the comment about the pill 'drastically altering' the functioning of a woman's body.

Well I didn't think that was a relevant comment, considering from the very start I've said that this is a subject for....the doctor and the patient.

What would you like me to say? The oral contraceptive pills available for women make hormone values less variable. They operate on feedback loops, and prevent ovulation and implantation of the embryo. It's not right for everybody, so women should consult their physician for advice, rather than some fool on the internet who thinks gasoline is a valid argument against prescription medication delivery being a part of healthcare...

Quote:

You really stuck your foot in your mouth on that one.

Yes, well I don't really care what it looks like to you from your Dunning-Kruger fantasy land.
 
captain morgan
#425
Thanks for coming out... Get back to me when you get a little life-experience and are prepared to see this for what it is.
 
Tonington
+1
#426
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Thanks for coming out... Get back to me when you get a little life-experience and are prepared to see this for what it is.

Ahh, more delusion, if you don't see it my way you must be wrong.

Anything else to add?

Let's see.

I've shown you that:
a) It's not the federal government who pays for her insurance.
b) That the federal government can legislate laws that interfere with the practices of religious institutions.
c) That not all women at Georgetown get their prescriptions covered, even when medically necessary.

And you want to focus on:
a) Fluke wants to have her prescriptions paid by someone else so she can have sex.
b) Administration of healthcare is not part of healthcare.
c) Why don't they offer hysterectomies and chemotherapy instead of the oral contraceptive pill, to reduce lifetime risk of many female reproductive diseases.

 
bluebyrd35
#427
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Done, glad to help.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

What are you trying to say here?

In the end, Fluke's problem is that she refuses to accept responsibility for herself as it relates to contraception... You and a couple of other posters and trying in vain to transform Fluke's demands for subsidized contraception into a health issue.... I don't mind telling you that you're doing a piss-poor job on that front.

As it stands, medically related concerns are dealt with via the insurance.. End of story

As for Fluke's sad little drama about not being able to afford all the sex she wants - again, that's her problem, not mine.


Good Lord, for Gawd's sake read the blooming articles before making stupid objections that simply show total ignorance of the topic.

Sandra Flukes, appeared before a government committee to ask that group insurances, paid for by students, etc. supply the coverage these persons want in a policy they already PAY FOR! It is about including certain specific coverage to a policy already in existence which, once again they PAY FOR. A policy the UNIVERSITY, nor the government pays for nor subsidizes.

The topic has nothing to do with what women get in free coverage, in Canada, through our taxes, that some men appear to think they should have as well!! Our health care in Canada is not a free service and each province, spends their share in the areas, that each province deems to be best for it's people.
 
bluebyrd35
#428
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

What do you expect?

You dance around the issue and apparently are unable to provide any form of response that deals with the posts directed at you... this very same sentiment has been echoed by more than just myself on this issue.

I have laid out, point by point the issue, so how do you claim dancing around the issue on my part. It has been claimed that 1)Women should not nor are they entitled to birthcontrol EVEN if they pay for it. 2) If they want to be a lawyer, engineer, nurse and the course that suits their wishes, is in a Jewish, Muslim or Christian University they must follow the religious rules of that University to get the education they pay for. Geez, maybe under those rules, all women being educated in a Muslim university should be wearing a hijab? 3) Maybe all men who like the educational program offered in a Jewish University, should be circumcised before being allowed to attend.

So who here, is exactly dancing around the issue of freedom of religion no matter where they decide to get their education??

It always astounds me that there are sooo many males who feel threatened when women demand reasonable treatment under the law. Get real man!! If you or any other "man" pay for private healthcare coverage and then do not receive what they pay for under the law, women would join you in your fight for justice. Not the apparently insecure specimens here though, right??

Most of the men here appeared to feel threatened by women's demands for fair play, even when attempts to gain such rights occur by a woman in a foreign country!!
,

PS Tonnington, hats off ...... you must be much younger than the male fossils that post here.
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Mar 12th, 2012 at 11:52 AM..
 
DaSleeper
+1
#429
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

I have laid out, point by point the issue, so how do you claim dancing around the issue on my part. It has been claimed that 1)Women should not nor are they entitled to birthcontrol EVEN if they pay for it.

Why do you keep making things up???
didn't you read this post?????
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post


[/B]A charge for this Premier Plan is placed on eligible students' accounts, per their registration status referenced above, once per Academic Year. Upon being charged for the Premier Plan, students can elect or waive the Plan during Open Enrollment, as appropriate.


In Bold: Students can waive the school plan as long as their own plan provides enough coverage (That's the school protecting themselves against litigation
"Byrdie" is good at ignoring what does not conform to her ideology

Quote:

2) If they want to be a lawyer, engineer, nurse and the course that suits their wishes, is in a Jewish, Muslim or Christian University they must follow the religious rules of that University to get the education they pay for. Geez, maybe under those rules, all women being educated in a Muslim university should be wearing a hijab? 3) Maybe all men who like the educational program offered in a Jewish University, should be circumcised before being allowed to attend.

So who here, is exactly dancing around the issue of freedom of religion no matter where they decide to get their education??

It always astounds me that there are sooo many males who feel threatened when women demand reasonable treatment under the law. Get real man!! If you or any other "man" pay for private healthcare coverage and then do not receive what they pay for under the law, women would join you in your fight for justice. Not the apparently insecure specimens here though, right??

Most of the men here appeared to feel threatened by women's demands for fair play, even when attempts to gain such rights occur by a woman in a foreign country!!
,

PS Tonnington, hats off ...... you must be much younger than the male fossils that post here.

The rest of your post is utter rambling or complete fabrication on your part and shows a peculiar obsession on your part that surely must have a name in some psychiatric journal somewhere
 
Niflmir
+3 / -1
#430
I see Godwin's law holds true.

It is always a sure tell when people feel the need to portray a woman's normal sex life in a negative light. It is a surer tell still when someone is called a prostitute for wanting combination estrogen/progestin pills as treatment for ovarian cysts. It is a sign that legislation is truly necessary that the common name of a thing--birth control pill--prevents the thing from being covered in an insurance policy that must then go on to pay for the surgery to remove an ovary caused by the single payer's obstinate refusal to cover the preventative.

So a woman wants the insurance that she is paying for to cover combined estrogen/progestin pills and that makes her a prostitute? Group insurance isn't subsidized by the group. Group bargaining power is not a subsidy.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#431
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

I see Godwin's law holds true.

It is always a sure tell when people feel the need to portray a woman's normal sex life in a negative light. It is a surer tell still when someone is called a prostitute for wanting combination estrogen/progestin pills as treatment for ovarian cysts. It is a sign that legislation is truly necessary that the common name of a thing--birth control pill--prevents the thing from being covered in an insurance policy that must then go on to pay for the surgery to remove an ovary caused by the single payer's obstinate refusal to cover the preventative.

So a woman wants the insurance that she is paying for to cover combined estrogen/progestin pills and that makes her a prostitute? Group insurance isn't subsidized by the group. Group bargaining power is not a subsidy.

Damn. Beat me to the punch. Or at least the post.
Um, mentioning Godwin's law reminds me of the Peter Principle concerning the deterioration of the debates. lol
 
Niflmir
+2
#432
Wow. Georgetown University's policy really sucks...

Quote:

No benefits will be paid for: a) loss or expense caused by, contributed to, or resulting from; or b) treatment, service or supplies for, at, or related to:
...
6. Dental treatment, except for Injury to Sound, Natural teeth;
...
8. Vision services and supplies related to eye refractions or eye examinations, eyeglasses,
contact lenses, prescriptions or fitting of eyeglasses, and radial keratotomy, keratomileusis or
excimer laser photo refractive keratectomy or similar type procedures or services; except when
due to disease process or Injury;
...
16. Organ transplants;
...

So... no coverage for the things I am most likely to need, and no coverage for the things I will be the most desperate for. On top of that, I cannot opt out of coverage unless I

Quote:

... already have health insurance coverage of at least $100,000 per Injury and $100,000 per Sickness, which will remain in effect throughout the academic year, [I] may waive participation in the Plan by submitting documentation of other insurance

and then they may, at their discretion, allow the waiver. Bear in mind that I will only be fully covered if I receive treatment at the Student Health Center, and will have to pay 30% of treatment if I have the audacity to need surgery outside of the SHC or University Hospital.
 
Locutus
+2
#433
Rush Limbaugh: Why the Left Is Envious



Rush Limbaugh: Why the Left Is Envious - The Daily Beast (external - login to view)
 
Tonington
+1
#434
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Rush Limbaugh: Why the Left Is Envious

Why Limbaugh is delusional:

The GOP is practically handing over women voters to the Democrats. For Democratic strategists, they might want to call 2011-12 the Republican War on Reproductive Rights, or something like that.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#435
Yep. Funny situation.
Um, the article said something about why don't the "progressives" have their own political commentators on radio and tv. Well, I think they do, but they just aren't called "political commentators". They're called satirists, which is basically the best kind of editorialising on politics there is as most politics is a bad joke and deserves to be ridiculed.

www.politicususa.com/jon-stewart-fox-ratings/ (external - login to view)

gawker.com/5877419/stephen-co...publican-field (external - login to view)
 
CDNBear
#436
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

I certainly can't point out anywhere where you disagreed with those sentiments either.

So you'll be apologizing for making false accusation now?

Quote:

Without any sort of denial, I must assume tacit agreement with that poster's comments.

Ummm...

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Please.......have some regard for actual facts.

You should.

Quote:

As for the former remarks, I am not into childishness.

But you do it so well.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Hmmm. I see the usual personal linsults in place of an intelligent reply.

If you don't like it, stop reading your posts.
 
bluebyrd35
#437
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

So you'll be apologizing for making false accusation now.

Ahhh, so women shouldn't have to simply keep their legs crossed as a form of birthcontrol?? You agree that they should be free to have some say re coverage of group insurance, they pay for without interference from a religious institution??

Say so in writing & I will apologize.
 
captain morgan
+1
#438
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

It is always a sure tell when people feel the need to portray a woman's normal sex life in a negative light. It is a surer tell still when someone is called a prostitute for wanting combination estrogen/progestin pills as treatment for ovarian cysts.

Read Fluke's speech - in this she recognizes that insurance coverage for birth control pills for the purpose of medically (ie ovarian cysts) required reasons IS covered.

Hence the reason that Fluke uses the term contraceptive throughout her address, she is looking for contraceptive coverage in addition to the medical reasons.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

So a woman wants the insurance that she is paying for to cover combined estrogen/progestin pills and that makes her a prostitute? Group insurance isn't subsidized by the group. Group bargaining power is not a subsidy.

But, she isn't paying for that coverage now, is she?

Just cause you buy auto insurance that has PDLP, doesn't mean that it magically transforms into a comprehensive policy the moment that you are in an accident.
 
bluebyrd35
#439
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Read Fluke's speech - in this she recognizes that insurance coverage for birth control pills for the purpose of medically (ie ovarian cysts) required reasons IS covered.

Hence the reason that Fluke uses the term contraceptive throughout her address, she is looking for contraceptive coverage in addition to the medical reasons.



But, she isn't paying for that coverage now, is she?

Just cause you buy auto insurance that has PDLP, doesn't mean that it magically transforms into a comprehensive policy the moment that you are in an accident.

She is paying for insurance coverage of that particular medication though isn't she??? It is the University, because of it's religious bias, that has changed the rules, recommended under the Department of Health Guidelines the particular health reason that medication can be used for.

Your auto insurance scenario, is rather stupid by the way. If, one buys collision auto insurance, through the university, would it cover the vehicles in a collision, only if those vehicles are driven by a priest or minister or someone on a religious mission?? I don't think so.
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Mar 14th, 2012 at 10:13 AM..
 
captain morgan
+1
#440
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

She is paying for insurance coverage of that particular medication though isn't she???

IF she is diagnosed with the condition. She's probably covered for brain surgery as well, but that doesn't mean that she can go in and opt for that surgery without a medical reason.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

It is the University, because of it's religious bias, that has changed the rules, recommended under the Department of Health Guidelines the particular health reason that medication can be used for.

Bullsh*t. The only bias going on here is Fluke's attempt at quashing the rights of Georgetown University and the Catholic faith... Fact is, if this issue had anything to do with medically necessary medication, it would be covered (and guess what? - It IS covered). Secondly, the issue is with the insurer and not the school - if enabling all women to get birth control pills saved them a ton of cash, they'd do it in a heart beat, but as it stands, it is not covered as a form of contraceptive.

Straddle the fence all you like, but in the end, Fluke's pissing and moaning is about contraceptives and not preventative health care.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Your auto insurance scenario, is rather stupid by the way. If, one buys collision auto insurance, through the university, would it cover the vehicles in a collision, only if those vehicles are driven by a priest or minister or someone on a religious mission?? I don't think so.

You think the example is stupid only because it is effective in shooting holes in your position.
 
Tonington
#441
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Read Fluke's speech - in this she recognizes that insurance coverage for birth control pills for the purpose of medically (ie ovarian cysts) required reasons IS covered.

Sometimes. She notes it is sometimes covered. Her friend was denied despite her doctor's confirmation of the necessity in preventing ovarian cyst formation. A point you continually fail to note. The policy isn't working if even after the doctor confirms the medical necessity, the claim is denied.

Derp
 
CDNBear
+1
#442
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Ahhh, so women shouldn't have to simply keep their legs crossed as a form of birthcontrol?? You agree that they should be free to have some say re coverage of group insurance, they pay for without interference from a religious institution??

Say so in writing & I will apologize.

I don't have to. You accused me of something that I have not said.

I don't care if you apologize or not.

But I do know whatever you do, it says more about you than I.

Especially after your comment...

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Please.......have some regard for actual facts.

 
Niflmir
#443
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Read Fluke's speech - in this she recognizes that insurance coverage for birth control pills for the purpose of medically (ie ovarian cysts) required reasons IS covered.

Hence the reason that Fluke uses the term contraceptive throughout her address, she is looking for contraceptive coverage in addition to the medical reasons.

But, she isn't paying for that coverage now, is she?

Just cause you buy auto insurance that has PDLP, doesn't mean that it magically transforms into a comprehensive policy the moment that you are in an accident.

Except that the policy only covers it if after being interrogated by non-medical personnel, they decide that it actually is necessary. In a case where it was medically necessary: ovarian cysts, it was not covered. This is the tell that I am talking about.

As for the policy that Fluke is paying for, certainly it doesn't cover contraceptives, but I certainly wasn't implying that it did. I was implying that she was paying for insurance which does cover prescription drugs already, so if the government did mandate that insurance cover "birth control pills", the government would still not be paying for the policy (she would be) and therefore the government/taxpayers would not be paying her to have sex. Therefore calling her a prostitute is completely ridiculous, ergo, why it is a tell for Limbaugh (or anyone else) to say such a thing.
 
bluebyrd35
#444
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I don't have to. You accused me of something that I have not said.

I don't care if you apologize or not.

But I do know whatever you do, it says more about you than I.

Especially after your comment...

Yes, I did accuse you of something you did not say!! I accused you of NOT denying, you agree that women should abstain from sex....you know, merely keep their legs closed as a birthcontrol method.

LOL......Yup makes me look really good!!
 
CDNBear
+1
#445
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Yes, I did accuse you of something you did not say!!

That's the first honest thing I've seen you post on here.

Quote:

I accused you of NOT denying, you agree that women should abstain from sex....you know, merely keep their legs closed as a birthcontrol method.

No, you didn't. You straight up accused me of saying something, I didn't say. Here, maybe you should take a look at it one more time...

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

...why,your solution could revolutionize marriage and control the population to extinction. I guess you did miss the fact that the University's insurance policy applied to Employees and Staff as well as the student body??

I wonder how the married personnel would feel about your ill-conceived solutions to unwanted pregnancies. (Aside from husbands keeping their zippers up and wives keeping their legs crossed?? )

Quote:

LOL......Yup makes me look really stupid!!

FIFY.
 
bluebyrd35
#446
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35
...why,your solution could revolutionize marriage and control the population to extinction. I guess you did miss the fact that the University's insurance policy applied to Employees and Staff as well as the student body??

I wonder how the married personnel would feel about your ill-conceived solutions to unwanted pregnancies. (Aside from husbands keeping their zippers up and wives keeping their legs crossed?? )

Sorry luv, but the portion in brackets is not a quote of yours, and is not used as such. I was asking you how "married personnel" would feel about your ill-conceived solutions. It must be assumed you completely agreed with these solutions, as you very pointedly avoided denying agreement of them..

Besides, the " men keeping their zippers up" are my words from a previous post. It was in answer to the remark about women keeping their legs closed.

So deny this is your opinion, or put up with my assumptions.

Last edited by bluebyrd35; Mar 14th, 2012 at 08:11 PM..
 
CDNBear
+2
#447
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Sorry luv, but the portion in brackets is not a quote of yours, and is not used as such.

I know it's not a quote of mine. It's a quote of yours, where you accused me of saying something I have not said.

Quote:

I was asking you how "married personnel" would feel about your ill-conceived solutions.

Ya, I can put a question mark at the end of a statement too. But I hate doing stupid things.

Quote:

It must be assumed you completely agreed with these solutions, a you very pointedly avoided denying agreement of them..

No, it should be assumed that I haven't offered an opinion. Anything you put forth is speculation.

Which is odd for someone who was whining about sticking to the facts.

Quote:

Besides, the " men keeping their zippers up" are my words from a previous post. It was in answer to the remark about women keeping their legs closed.

Awesome, I never said women should keep their legs closed. All I did was correct your fallacious claim that women do not have access to contraception, as cheaply or easily as men.

Quote:

So deny this is your opinion, or put up with my assumptions.

I don't have to, watching you make an ass of yourself is entertaining.
 
Just the Facts
+1
#448
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Sometimes. She notes it is sometimes covered. Her friend was denied despite her doctor's confirmation of the necessity in preventing ovarian cyst formation. A point you continually fail to note. The policy isn't working if even after the doctor confirms the medical necessity, the claim is denied.

Derp

Was the denial a correct application of policy, or was her friend denied in error? Just askin.
 
Tonington
#449
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Was the denial a correct application of policy, or was her friend denied in error? Just askin.

The doctor confirmed the medical necessity of the prescription...if the policy allows for medical exemptions, and the doctor confirmed that indeed the prescription was medically necessary because this woman was prone to cyst development, and the prescription still wasn't covered, it is not a correct application of the policy. She was denied repeatedly. She couldn't afford the prescription on her own, and she had to stop taking the pills. Then she was hospitalized when a cyst the size of a tennis ball formed on her ovary, and she needed surgery to have the ovary removed. Oh, and she's a lesbian. Now she's going through early menopause which onset after the surgery, at 32 years old.

Covering the birth control would have prevented a whole lot of cost to that insurance policy...and prevented a whole lot of unnecessary pain and debilitation. But at least no Catholics had to stop practicing denial of the oral contraceptive pill to women.

If you read her testimony she brings up a few other cases as well.
 
captain morgan
+1
#450
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Sometimes. She notes it is sometimes covered. Her friend was denied despite her doctor's confirmation of the necessity in preventing ovarian cyst formation. A point you continually fail to note. The policy isn't working if even after the doctor confirms the medical necessity, the claim is denied.

Derp

So what? Fluke describes a circumstance where someone was denied coverage?... Do you know both sides of that story or is the info provided exclusively by Fluke the definitive description.

Claims on insurance policies get denied everyday, sometimes that denial is valid and other times it is not.

Like I mentioned to you recently, start organizing and paying for your own policies and you'll learn this reality.

2-packs


Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Except that the policy only covers it if after being interrogated by non-medical personnel, they decide that it actually is necessary. In a case where it was medically necessary: ovarian cysts, it was not covered. This is the tell that I am talking about.

See above.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

As for the policy that Fluke is paying for, certainly it doesn't cover contraceptives, but I certainly wasn't implying that it did. I was implying that she was paying for insurance which does cover prescription drugs already, so if the government did mandate that insurance cover "birth control pills", the government would still not be paying for the policy (she would be) and therefore the government/taxpayers would not be paying her to have sex. Therefore calling her a prostitute is completely ridiculous, ergo, why it is a tell for Limbaugh (or anyone else) to say such a thing.

Fine, you want to the gvt to mandate that coverage, that's all well and fine with me, but as you are most likely aware, the cost for that coverage gets passed directly along to Fluke et al, so really, what has she accomplished? In fact, if that policy change is mandated, the costs for those women that don't want/need birth control pills will also increase to pay for Fluke's demands - is that fair to them? Will Fluke then run off at the mouth about the inequities of charging those folks? What about IUD's and condoms - that's a natural progression in the logic - does it make sense?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The doctor confirmed the medical necessity of the prescription...if the policy allows for medical exemptions, and the doctor confirmed that indeed the prescription was medically necessary because this woman was prone to cyst development, and the prescription still wasn't covered, it is not a correct application of the policy. She was denied repeatedly. She couldn't afford the prescription on her own, and she had to stop taking the pills. Then she was hospitalized when a cyst the size of a tennis ball formed on her ovary, and she needed surgery to have the ovary removed. Oh, and she's a lesbian. Now she's going through early menopause which onset after the surgery, at 32 years old.

Covering the birth control would have prevented a whole lot of cost to that insurance policy...and prevented a whole lot of unnecessary pain and debilitation. But at least no Catholics had to stop practicing denial of the oral contraceptive pill to women.

If you read her testimony she brings up a few other cases as well.

What a crock of sh*t... You've morphed from an anomaly/problem with the insurance company to blaming all Catholics... Nice little agenda there, but just for fun, please tell us how the Catholic Church conspired to harm this individual. I'm sure that it's a tale worthy of a Dan Brown novel

By the way, does Fluke's story (which could be fiction as far as we know) that details 1 circumstance justify altering an entire nation? Only a fool would seek that means to an end.
 

Similar Threads

217
Rush Limbaugh's ratings fall
by Icarus27k | Sep 21st, 2016
68
Rush LImbaugh's new conspiracy theory
by Tonington | May 4th, 2010
7
Oi, get the message!
by Blackleaf | Feb 8th, 2006
7
A Canada Day Message
by bluealberta | Jul 6th, 2005
no new posts