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.
Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
...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
Sure, read this:
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.
The insurance policy is arranged between the insurance company and the University on behalf of the students
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.
Maybe - but I guess that's tough sh*t for Flukes that addiction treatments are covered and rubbers aren't.
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?
...or maybe it's tough **** your you and Rush when contraceptives are covered.
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".
It won't bother one bit... But much to your chagrin, it will be the insurer that makes the decision, not you.
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
Does Rush have the same plan as Fluke? You're following the fools down the rabbit hole.
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.
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.
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
David Frum wrote:
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
Limbaugh is a bad joke in many ways, and regardless of your feelings on the contraceptives issue, he was way offside.
Are we being fair to Rush Limbaugh? - CNN.com
David Frum wrote:
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
Limbaugh is a bad joke in many ways, and regardless of your feelings on the contraceptives issue, he was way offside.
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.
