Cleveland Buck;1102939 wrote:Preventing people from going on it is the same thing as eliminating people from the population that would exist if we don't pass out printing press funded contraception. It is the exact same scenario, and if it is morally abhorrent to start murdering people to save costs on the welfare, then why isn't it morally abhorrent to steal money from every holder of dollars to pay for the welfare state in the first place or pay for the contraception? If you want to be moral about the situation, there is only one way. Eliminate the welfare state. Not the people.

Winner.

Ms. Fluke chose to go to a religious affiliated college. If she doesn't like the fact that the health care policy doesn't include her birth control,then transfer....or buy your own health care insurance.

She has several choices here. If she wants to enjoy sex and not get pregnant, then buy your own...it's that simple. If she wants to save the 3 grand she claims it will cost her, then enjoy other aspects of sex. God invented blow jobs for a reason Ms. Fluke.

As for Limbaugh...SMH at the fatman. One can frame an argument with some thought, reason and articulation....or one can reaffirm what a total jizzball one is by using such juvenile rhetoric on the public airways.

I see that already, one of Limbaugh's sponsors has told him to shove it.

Footwedge;1103096 wrote:Ms. Fluke chose to go to a religious affiliated college. If she doesn't like the fact that the health care policy doesn't include her birth control,then transfer....or buy your own health care insurance.

She has several choices here. If she wants to enjoy sex and not get pregnant, then buy your own...it's that simple. If she wants to save the 3 grand she claims it will cost her, then enjoy other aspects of sex. God invented blow jobs for a reason Ms. Fluke.

As for Limbaugh...SMH at the fatman. One can frame an argument with some thought, reason and articulation....or one can reaffirm what a total jizzball one is by using such juvenile rhetoric on the public airways.

I see that already, one of Limbaugh's sponsors has told him to shove it.

He framed the argument with perfect thought and reason. She wants others to pay for her to bang. Is there another term besides "prostitute" that we should use?

I'm sorry but thought and reason are two words that should never be associated with Rush Limbaugh. It sucks that Rush gets associated as the leader of the conservative party, it really is quite embarassing.

To me it really boils down to two things

1. Contraception is not immoral. If you want to take it, so be it. Nothing wrong with it at all.
2. No one should be forced to pay for others to have "free" healthcare. If you choose to use contraception, you pay for it. Noone is wanting to deny or ban contraception.

Footwedge;1103096 wrote:As for Limbaugh...SMH at the fatman. One can frame an argument with some thought, reason and articulation....or one can reaffirm what a total jizzball one is by using such juvenile rhetoric on the public airways.

Yes. Limbaugh is a fucking idiot. I think he meant what he said, but he's an idiot for saying it that way.

bases_loaded;1102905 wrote:No one is saying they can't have contraceptives...were just saying they should pay for it themselves...there is no such thing as free. If the government is providing it, they are providing it from a contract they struck in a back alley that gave them a kickback and the taxpayers the brunt of the cost.

Here's a radical thought....we're going to provide free abortions(?), so isn't that sort of redundant with providing free contraception? If you think about it, it's probably cheaper to just cover the abortions then it is to absorb the cost of contraception for millions that would otherwise pay their own way.

What Rush should have said is if you want a free license to bang, then you should only bang guys who can afford birth control if you're unwilling to pay for it yourself.

Yes, Rush calling this young lady a slut is wrong and anyone with half a brain knows this. The far right wackos of the Rebublican party will not quit until this is the law of the land:

Bigdogg;1103297 wrote:Yes, Rush calling this young lady a slut is wrong and anyone with half a brain knows this. The far right wackos of the Rebublican party will not quit until this is the law of the land:

Shocker Bigdogg disagrees with Rush.

No shocker that doggie posts that, and tries to spin that this is what it's about.
Fail.... Just like the loser party he identifies with.

Like I said above, the only reason I could see an argument for it is if it drastically reduced welfare costs.

People on welfare already have birth control provided on their medical cards. This is about private employers being mandated to provide it to people who have jobs...and who, for the price of a small flat screen TV, could afford to buy contraception on their own.

This is strictly about control( government control, not birth control) and a certain political party trying to buy votes by somehow making this a women's rights issue.

Rush is a puke. No intelligent person listens to him.

FairwoodKing;1103453 wrote:Rush is a puke. No intelligent person listens to him.

I bet there is at least one intelligent person that listens to him.

justincredible;1103457 wrote:I bet there is at least one intelligent person that listens to him.

I'll bet you half my vcash out of 20 million listeners there are at least 10.

Sadly, there are millions who listen to Rush. Many on this site probably listen to him, although they'd never admit to doing so.

I guess this goes back to how many of you object to any kind of health care being free of charge. The fact that someone can get something for nothing must really stick in your craws. I wonder how many of you have health insurance that covers Viagra or one of the ED medications. Of course, you'd never admit to ever using it, would you?

I'll give Rush one thing, though. I'd be willing to bet he paid for all of the oxy he ate for all those years. So much of it that it cost him his hearing, I understand. Unless, of course, all of those prescriptions he shopped around for were covered by his health insurance. Wouldn't that be the end-all?

And for any of you to agree with his characterization of this student, I'd be willing to bet your wives, girlfriends or daughters never see your posts.

Just read about this, did the Georgetown woman really say it would cost up to $3,000 for 3 years for birth control, or was that media puffery? Even out of pocket the birth control pill shouldn't cost more than $500 a year, and that's with a private doctor prescription. $3,000? WTF?

"'And for any of you to agree with his characterization of this student, I'd be willing to bet your wives, girlfriends or daughters never see your posts."

My wife's characterization of this student is that she's an idiot if she truly claims that it costs $1,000/year for birth control. What world do you live in?

^^^ way to grasp the concepts of the arguement.

Sadly, there are millions who listen to Rush.

Sadly, there are hopefully only thousands who watch MSNBC.

Manhattan Buckeye;1103640 wrote:"'And for any of you to agree with his characterization of this student, I'd be willing to bet your wives, girlfriends or daughters never see your posts."

My wife's characterization of this student is that she's an idiot if she truly claims that it costs $1,000/year for birth control. What world do you live in?

Well, I don't know how much a prescription for birth control is these days. I can say this, however. A prescription for Lipitor, used to control cholesterol, is well over $150 per month if it isn't covered by health insurance. Given the high cost of prescription medication, $1000 per year for birth control isn't unreasonable. You wonder what world I live in? Take away your insurance coverage and see what world you would inhabit. I'd say your wife is spoiled by her coverage and has no clue what the real cost is.

majorspark;1103466 wrote:I'll bet you half my vcash out of 20 million listeners there are at least 10.

Name one.

stlouiedipalma;1103655 wrote:Well, I don't know how much a prescription for birth control is these days. I can say this, however. A prescription for Lipitor, used to control cholesterol, is well over $150 per month if it isn't covered by health insurance. Given the high cost of prescription medication, $1000 per year for birth control isn't unreasonable. You wonder what world I live in? Take away your insurance coverage and see what world you would inhabit. I'd say your wife is spoiled by her coverage and has no clue what the real cost is.

It isn't just unreasonable, it is idiocy. My wife's previous employer in NY didn't cover the pill because Pfizer was a competitor, it was just over $400 for a doctor prescribed pill that wasn't off the rack from a cheap pharmacy. If someone does want to go to the cheap route you can get it for $10/month or go to Planned Parenthood for free.

Credibility matters. Stating that birth control costs $1,000 a year destroys one's credibility. For god's sake poor people from my old high school were on the pill, there's no $&%^ing way it costs $1,000/year. If this woman really stated this, she deserves the criticism. If someone criticizes Obama's energy policies by claiming they are paying $10/gallon for gas, they deserve to be lit up. You can't just make up facts.

FairwoodKing;1103690 wrote:Name one.

Walter Williams.

stlouiedipalma;1103655 wrote:Well, I don't know how much a prescription for birth control is these days. I can say this, however. A prescription for Lipitor, used to control cholesterol, is well over $150 per month if it isn't covered by health insurance. Given the high cost of prescription medication, $1000 per year for birth control isn't unreasonable. You wonder what world I live in? Take away your insurance coverage and see what world you would inhabit. I'd say your wife is spoiled by her coverage and has no clue what the real cost is.

Your point is pretty well taken but your example is off target. Lipitor did not cost that much...and now it is sold as a generic...Atorvastatin...which is not very expensive at all.

I don't think birth control costs 1k per per year either, but I could be wrong on that one.

http://www.pharmacychecker.com/compare-drug-prices-online-pharmacies/Lipitor-40+mg/18926/30857/

http://www.pharmacychecker.com/compare-drug-prices-online-pharmacies/Atorvastatin-40+mg/34988/59735/

I looked up Alesse bcp and it costs about $670 per year.

Manhattan Buckeye;1103692 wrote:It isn't just unreasonable, it is idiocy. My wife's previous employer in NY didn't cover the pill because Pfizer was a competitor, it was just over $400 for a doctor prescribed pill that wasn't off the rack from a cheap pharmacy. If someone does want to go to the cheap route you can get it for $10/month or go to Planned Parenthood for free.

Credibility matters. Stating that birth control costs $1,000 a year destroys one's credibility. For god's sake poor people from my old high school were on the pill, there's no $&%^ing way it costs $1,000/year. If this woman really stated this, she deserves the criticism. If someone criticizes Obama's energy policies by claiming they are paying $10/gallon for gas, they deserve to be lit up. You can't just make up facts.

Not if people would listen to you.

If the woman really exaggerated her cost of birth control then yes she's a moron. That's a given, but this all comes down to the fact that the really conservative (socially) people in this country would rather birth control not be used to better jive with their bronze age religion than look at things like a rational person and realize that contraceptives prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies, two of the things they seem to hate so much for costing them money.

"Not if people would listen to you. '

Planned parenthood can give out as much birth control as they want, as long as its funded by private donors it is no concern of mine. I'll buy you an iPad 3 if you can show a post where I've ever stated otherwise.

Why you are strawmanning my arguments, I can tell you if birth control cost $1,000/year the U.S. would have exceeded China in population.

Is it that difficult to be consistent, factual and right (not politically, but right in the correct sense)? Unless someone is using abortion as birth control there isn't a single person in the U.S. spending $1,000 a year in birth control. It doesn't pass the idiot test.

Don't appreciate the strawman. Lame.

I think the woman's argument was based on birth control used to treate a friend's ovarian condition. If she's including costs of doctor's visits, $1000 a year might not be far off. But that's kind of distorting the picture.

Like I said, if it's a problem then date guys with jobs that can pay for it. At the end of the day, is this argument really that different than demanding to be reimbursed for food, clothes, etc..? Sex, for the most part, is a consumption choice. We shouldn't be subsidizing consumption choices such as this. It's really not all that different from saying someone has a right to free toothpaste or free skin moisturizer (actually, you'd argue toothpaste is more of a basic need).

It's not a necessity or basic need - if you can't afford to have a kid or afford birth control, then don't have sex. It's really not something I, the taxpayer, should pay for. On the other hand, in cases where birth control is used to treat medical conditions, then perhaps it should be included. But otherwise the corollary I might make is this is similar to cosmetic procedures that typically are not covered by insurance.

The argument from these women basically goes "I want to have sex, pay for my birth control". Fantastic. I want a new car - should the taxpayer finance that, too?