Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'


L Gilbert
+1
#91
If I were an insurance company and covered abortion, you bet I'd cover any contraception simply because it's a lot cheaper than abortion.
Here's a little info about the effectiveness of contraceptive methods:
https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.o.../effectiveness (external - login to view)
and here's a little info on the costs of the various methods:
The High Costs of Birth Control: A Major Barrier to Access | RH Reality Check (external - login to view)
and what the gov't thinks about contraceptives in comparison to pregnancies:
The economic value of contraception: a co... [Am J Public Health. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

Abortion costs? The average cost for an abortion is $468 in the States. That's just the procedure minus the clinic visits and other stuff.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

But his fans point to his popularity as proof of his abilities. These same fans, incidentally, disappear when asked about Justin Beiber's and Britney Spears' popularity. I've always wondered why popular equals good in the infotainment industry but not in the entertainment industry.

I never noticed. I'd say probably because individual choice about the various celebs overrides objective choice about celebrity issues. Like "my celebrity is next to perfect" but "the collective opinion of people must be accurate because so many people can't be wrong" sort of thing.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Well, it seems advertisers are growing tired of the right-wing Obama is a socialist hatefest. First Beck started hemorrhaging advertisers, eventually losing his TV show on FoxNews, now he's only on the radio. Now Limbaugh is losing advertisers:
A 7th advertiser backs away from Limbaugh's show after he calls law student '****' - chicagotribune.com (external - login to view)

And it's not like his ratings are going up...it's a bunch of old people who listen to that ideological shock jock talk radio. The median age is somewhere in the 55-65 range, and getting older and more grey all the time.

So much the better, IMO. I think the idea that people are getting pretty annoyed with the amount of advertising they are being subjected to and that is what is taking a toll on advertising more than anything else, though. And advertisers are less willing to keep supporting the more extreme ends of opinion for fear of losing consumers. So losing female consumers because of stupid comments by editorial jerks like Limpbag is pretty much a taboo to advertisers.
 
CDNBear
+1
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

My understanding is that she would be paying for her own birth control through her insurance much like I am paying for my own "free" prescriptions through my Blue Cross coverage.

You pay for your own Blue Cross coverage?
 
captain morgan
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Why would she have to pay extra? Her insurance covers prescription medication up to $5000 yearly with co-pay...

Explain that to Cannuck. He's a little unclear on the concept

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I can't speak for her but I know that if I had to pay the total cost of my dental and prescriptions, I probably wouldn't bother with insurance in the first place as it would kind of defeat the purpose. I think either...

You can answer that question yourself simply by looking into the business model that the Insurance companies follow, it's no big secret and it will go a long way towards providing you with a functional knowledge of the industry.

*Hint #1: Your 'free' prescriptions are not in fact 'free'
*Hint #2: The Insurance companies are not in business to lose money.

Let's see if you can connect the dots on this.


Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Why shouldn't they?

Why should they?
 
bluebyrd35
+1
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I see... So, if contraceptives were included on the policy, do you think that Flukes would be OK with paying an extra $1000 in premiums?.. You know, the actual cost of the pill?



The University is denying women anything on the insurance front.. It is the insurance company that has instituted the policy.. How is Georgetown Uni responsible for the insurer's policy. For that matter, why should the Uni or the Insurance company pay for Flukes' reproductive habits?

Quite true!! In fact, the fight for inclusion of birthcontrol into insurance policies was being fought state by state, insurance company by insurance company for twenty years. Enough already, they pay for men's sexual and reproductive habits, and they save NO money there. Pregnancy is covered, so by preventing it is a bonus. So it is out and out discrimination. That is what the whole shmozzle is all about, not about cost, nor about Catholism but about control of the uterus. Good grief.
 
gerryh
#95
If it wasnt about Catholisism, then why pick a Catholic University?
 
Cannuck
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

*Hint #1: Your 'free' prescriptions are not in fact 'free'

In my case they mostly are because, with three kids, I cost the insurance company far more than they collect from me. That's how insurance works.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

*Hint #2: The Insurance companies are not in business to lose money.

Are you suggesting that providing a service that people want will make insurance companies lose money. Perhaps you can explain your business model to me?

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Why should they?

It's called free enterprise. People want a service. A company steps up and provides it. Are you against free enterprise?

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

If it wasnt about Catholisism, then why pick a Catholic University?

Because she was a student there. Try and keep up Gerry.
 
gerryh
#97
Ya, you really should try to keep. She picked that university based on the insurance nit covering contraceptives. Big surprise that a Catholic University would want to make sure that an insurance policy it condones does not contravene Catholic policy.
 
critter171
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Limbaugh (external - login to view)



Conservative and controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh is once again causing a furor, following comments he made earlier this week calling a Georgetown University law student “a ****” and suggesting she and her female classmates should post videos of themselves having sex if their contraception was subsidized.

Limbaugh made the comments following the appearance of Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student, at a congressional panel. Fluke testified on Feb. 23 about the Obama administration’s new policy requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance that covers birth control.

She said students at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, pay as much as $1,000 a year for birth control because campus health plans do not cover contraception for women, the Washington Post reported. She also spoke of a friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn’t cover the prescription birth control she needed to stop the growth of cysts.

On his Wednesday radio show, Limbaugh said: “What does it say about the college coed Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a ****, right? It makes her a prostitute.”

He went on to suggest that Fluke distribute sex tapes of herself.

“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it,” he said. “We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”

President Barack Obama phoned Fluke on Friday to express his support, spokesman Jay Carney said.

Obama considers Limbaugh’s remarks “reprehensible,” Carney said. He said the president called Fluke to “express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks” and to thank her for speaking out on an issue of public policy.

“The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough,” Carney said. “It is worse when it’s directed at a private citizen who was simply expressing her views.”

Obama reached Fluke as she was waiting to go on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports. “What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud,” a choked-up Fluke told Mitchell. “And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me.”

Limbaugh was still defiant Friday. “Amazingly, when there is the slightest bit of opposition to this new welfare entitlement being created, then all of a sudden we hate women! We want ’em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen,” he said on his show. “And now, at the end of this week, I am the person that the women of America are to fear the most.”

More than 130 Georgetown faculty members signed a letter praising Fluke for her “grace and strength” and condemning Limbaugh’s remarks. And Republican House Speaker John Boehner called Limbaugh’s remarks “inappropriate,” a spokesman said.

Calls for Limbaugh’s sponsors to pull their ads from his radio talk show rocketed through cyberspace, and at least two companies, bedding retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, said on their Twitter accounts that they were complying with the demands.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

LOL This sh!t can't get any funnier.. Limbaugh is a nut bar.. and women who want to have sex.. Gad bless you.. more the merrier.

not insutling anyone but rush is just a moron the only people who listen to him are sheep who follow fox news.... that about it i hate riding with my dad in his truck sometiems cause he has rush talking but he no more than a pest in this case.
 
captain morgan
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Quite true!! In fact, the fight for inclusion of birthcontrol into insurance policies was being fought state by state, insurance company by insurance company for twenty years. Enough already, they pay for men's sexual and reproductive habits, and they save NO money there. Pregnancy is covered, so by preventing it is a bonus. So it is out and out discrimination. That is what the whole shmozzle is all about, not about cost, nor about Catholism but about control of the uterus. Good grief.

Good luck in your quest.

I might suggest that you lobby the insurance provider on this as opposed to the University, you'll stand a much better chance of seeing tangible results.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It's called free enterprise. People want a service. A company steps up and provides it. Are you against free enterprise?


Finally, something from you that is founded in reality.

The problem for you is that it is the insurance company that makes the policy - not you.
 
Cannuck
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The problem for you is that it is the insurance company that makes the policy - not you.

That's not a problem for me at all. I can shop around and buy they policy I want. I'm not sure where you are doing business but you should think about going elsewhere.

If you and Rush want to buy insurance from a company that doesn't provide coverage for the pill, you are free to do so.
 
captain morgan
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That's not a problem for me at all. I can shop around and buy they policy I want. I'm not sure where you are doing business but you should think about going elsewhere.

If you and Rush want to buy insurance from a company that doesn't provide coverage for the pill, you are free to do so.

Not to worry, I know that option exists - I'd assume that Limbaugh knows that as well.

Perhaps you should get in touch with Flukes, no doubt that she will benefit from your inputs... Looks like her problem is solved then.
 
Tonington
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Perhaps you should get in touch with Flukes, no doubt that she will benefit from your inputs... Looks like her problem is solved then.

It's not quite that simple. If you read the links provided you would see why. Georgetown requires that their students have a health plan that meets certain criteria. The student must provide proof that they have insurance which meets this criteria, otherwise they have to take the plan offered through the Georgetown student service. Now, part of the cost of the plan is paid for by the school, while the other is paid by the student. So, the student in effect must find a comparable insurance policy offered at far less than the actual value of the Georgetown plan, a plan negotiated by the University. It's unlikely that single students will be able to negotiate a better price than they would pay with the subsidized plan offered by Georgetown.

For all the talk about coercion by the government, this is no less an act of coercion.
 
Cannuck
+1 / -1
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

For all the talk about coercion by the government, this is no less an act of coercion.

I really don't understand why Cap Morgan and Rush are getting their knickers twisted over this. It really doesn't affect them (contrary to what they believe).

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Not to worry, I know that option exists - I'd assume that Limbaugh knows that as well.

Obviously Rush doesn't. As he stated, “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it,” he said. “We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.” You agreed with him. Are you now admitting your error?
 
Tonington
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Obviously Rush doesn't. As he stated, “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it,” he said. “We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.” You agreed with him. Are you now admitting your error?

Bon appétite Cap'n
 
captain morgan
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I really don't understand why Cap Morgan and Rush are getting their knickers twisted over this. It really doesn't affect them (contrary to what they believe).



Obviously Rush doesn't. As he stated, “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it,” he said. “We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.” You agreed with him. Are you now admitting your error?

I made the suggestion earlier that you ought to understand how the insurance business works - clearly you are unable to comprehend what is a simple system.

Fact is, all the costs are deferred across the customer base, so in the event that Limbaugh shares the same insurer as Flukes, he is, in fact, subsidizing her contraceptives.

Now, stick with me here Cannuck - I know that I've been going at light speed for you (and at least one other)., but this will tie everything together for ya.

Flukes' demand for rubbers to be included will affect all of the customers in terms of the shared costs and therefore Rush is in fact paying for Flukes' personal lifestyle decisions.
 
bluebyrd35
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Good luck in your quest..

Not my quest, but that of the young women of the US vs the male oldies who still think of women as a lesser species.
 
captain morgan
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Not my quest, but that of the young women of the US vs the male oldies who still think of women as a lesser species.


It didn't take long for your agenda to come out.

Ya know, perhaps Flukes et al should start their won insurance company and the can cater exclusively to what ever demographics tehy want and offer what ever services they desire.

What do ya think?
 
bluebyrd35
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It didn't take long for your agenda to come out.

Ya know, perhaps Flukes et al should start their won insurance company and the can cater exclusively to what ever demographics tehy want and offer what ever services they desire.

What do ya think?

Geez, perhaps you like to explain MY agenda to me?

The insurance companies SAVE money by preventing unwanted pregnancies, so why don't they? On the other hand they encourage men's sexual prowess and pleasure with the side effect of producing those unwanted pregnancies.

That is exactly what Flukes is did.. The insurance policy was arranged between the University and the insurance company. The students as you are well aware of, are required to have insurance. So, why weren't the students and faculty wishes considered??

90 to 98 percent of the Catholic women in the US of childbearing age use birthcontrol So explain your problem with prescription birthcontrol being covered by insurance companies, considering the overwhelming advantages of so doing, both for the private & public purse.
 
Cannuck
+1
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fact is, all the costs are deferred across the customer base, so in the event that Limbaugh shares the same insurer as Flukes, he is, in fact, subsidizing her contraceptives.

...and she may have been subsidizing Rush with his addictions treatments. Fortunately for you and Rush though, you have the option of switching companies or not buying insurance. Ms Fluke doesn't get the same choice. Why are you so against choice?

As for the "personal lifestyle decisions" of Fluke, why do her decisions bother you so much. "Personal lifestyle decisions" affect everybody (using your arguments). I'm sure if you and Rush have your way, the next thing you'll be after is people playing sports or people having kids. Having kids is a "personal lifestyle decision". Are you and Rush adamant about not covering braces as well?


Rush Limbaugh has so much more to apologize for - latimes.com (external - login to view)
 
captain morgan
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Geez, perhaps you like to explain MY agenda to me?

Sure, read this:

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Not my quest, but that of the young women of the US vs the male oldies who still think of women as a lesser species.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

The insurance companies SAVE money by preventing unwanted pregnancies, so why don't they? On the other hand they encourage men's sexual prowess and pleasure with the side effect of producing those unwanted pregnancies.

They also save money by not paying for the sexual exploits of horn-dogs like Flukes.

In the end, this is between the insurance company and Flukes (and anyone else that is at odds with the policy). The University has nothing to do with it. That's my point: Don't make the argument to Georgetown University, make the argument to the insurance provider.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

That is exactly what Flukes is did.. The insurance policy was arranged between the University and the insurance company. The students as you are well aware of, are required to have insurance. So, why weren't the students and faculty wishes considered??

The insurance policy is arranged between the insurance company and the University on behalf of the students

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

90 to 98 percent of the Catholic women in the US of childbearing age use birthcontrol So explain your problem with prescription birthcontrol being covered by insurance companies, considering the overwhelming advantages of so doing, both for the private & public purse.

I really don't care what Catholic women choose for birth control options - that is their personal, private business... It is also their personal, individual responsibility.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

...and she may have been subsidizing Rush with his addictions treatments. Fortunately for you and Rush though, you have the option of switching companies or not buying insurance. Ms Fluke doesn't get the same choice. Why are you so against choice?

Maybe - but I guess that's tough sh*t for Flukes that addiction treatments are covered and rubbers aren't.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

As for the "personal lifestyle decisions" of Fluke, why do her decisions bother you so much. "Personal lifestyle decisions" affect everybody (using your arguments).

Her lifestyle doesn't bother me in any way.. I say, have at 'er Sandra - do whatever makes you happy.

BTW - you must Limbaugh pretty well; you seem to be on a very intimate level with him... Do you 2 share the same addictions treatment facility?
 
Cannuck
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Maybe - but I guess that's tough sh*t for Flukes that addiction treatments are covered and rubbers aren't.

...or maybe it's tough **** your you and Rush when contraceptives are covered.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Do you 2 share the same addictions treatment facility?

The only thing I've ever been addicted to is nicotine. With the help of my insurance company, I went on the patch and kicked the habit. I can just imagine how that must infuriate people like you and Rush to spend money on my "personal lifestyle choices".
 
captain morgan
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

...or maybe it's tough **** your you and Rush when contraceptives are covered.

It won't bother one bit... But much to your chagrin, it will be the insurer that makes the decision, not you.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

The only thing I've ever been addicted to is nicotine. With the help of my insurance company, I went on the patch and kicked the habit. I can just imagine how that must infuriate people like you and Rush to spend money on my "personal lifestyle choices".

Ya, sure.. The first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Didn't they teach you that at the clinic?

We all want you to get better Cannuck, but you have to take the first step yourself
 
Tonington
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fact is, all the costs are deferred across the customer base, so in the event that Limbaugh shares the same insurer as Flukes, he is, in fact, subsidizing her contraceptives.
...
Flukes' demand for rubbers to be included will affect all of the customers in terms of the shared costs and therefore Rush is in fact paying for Flukes' personal lifestyle decisions.

You assume far too much.
 
captain morgan
#114
No assumption
 
Tonington
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

No assumption

Does Rush have the same plan as Fluke? You're following the fools down the rabbit hole.
 
captain morgan
#116
You tell me. Considering that there are only a handful of insurers out there that have multiple subsidiaries, on top of the fact that your local insurance agency shops around within this limited # of actual providers - chances are good that at some level, Flukes and Limbaugh share the same insurer.

In the end, all of the customer base will kick into to cover the costs. If your position is founded on focusing exclusively on Limbaugh and ignoring the macro principles, well , there's not much use in going on with this discussion.
 
Tonington
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You tell me.

Your assumption, figure it out. Good luck with that.
 
wulfie68
#118
I think its telling, for all the bluster around the issue that even conservative pundits are against Limbaugh on this.
Are we being fair to Rush Limbaugh? - CNN.com (external - login to view)

David Frum wrote:
Quote:

Instead, public life is reduced to a revenge drama. Each offense is condoned by reference to some previous offense by some undefined "them" who supposedly once did something even worse, or anyway nearly as bad, at some point in the past.
But this latest Limbaugh outburst is so "piggish," to borrow a word from Peggy Noonan, as to overwhelm the revenge drama. (On Saturday, Limbaugh apologized "for the insulting word choices.")
It is the bottom of the barrel of shock talk.
And the good news is that from the bottom of the barrel, there is nowhere to go but up.

The faculty at Georgetown seems to have much the same attitude as Frum:
My Take: Georgetown backs Fluke vs. Limbaugh for civility's sake – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (external - login to view)
Quote:

Meanwhile, over 100 professors and staff members at Georgetown University Law Center signed a letter supporting Fluke. "As scholars and teachers who aim to train public-spirited lawyers, no matter what their politics, to engage intelligently and meaningfully with the world, we abhor these attacks on Ms. Fluke and applaud her strength and grace in the face of them," the letter says.

Limbaugh is a bad joke in many ways, and regardless of your feelings on the contraceptives issue, he was way offside.
 
captain morgan
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Your assumption, figure it out. Good luck with that.


I don't know how much clearer I can get... But the big irony here is that somehow you feel that your assumption that they don't share the same insurer is somehow more valid than other perspectives

... But like I said, if you're personally stuck on semantics that Limbaugh was speaking exclusively on his own behalf, then there's no point in discussing it further.

The insurance business model is very easy and very clear and that in itself supports Limbaugh's comment (on a macro basis)... I suggest that you look at the big picture on this rather than splitting hairs over, and over and over again.
 
TenPenny
#120
Are Viagra and Cialis covered?
 

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