ADVERTISEMENT

Rush Limbaugh

Tom,

Of course no one deserves to be called those names like Rush did. But you and many others portrayed Fluke as being a sincere college student with a real story/problem, etc. She's not and now you want to change the narrative?

Rush called a liberal shill/activist dirty names after she/they tried to portray her as something she's not. Should we make a list of all public figures who have done similar? Doesn't make it right, just be fair. Rush has to deal with the fallout now.
 
Originally posted by SPK145:
Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Originally posted by SPK145:



Viagra shouldn't be covered, two wrongs do not a right make.

Who the hell is the federal government to tell private companies what should be covered/entitled? Sad state of affairs.

In this respect I probably agree with you. But if one is covered I can see no reason why the other shouldn't be covered also. It's really up to the insurance company as to what they are charging the premium for. But they should not be discrimninating against one gender or the other. Charge the premium for both or neither.

Tom K
Yup, up to the insurance company and their premium paying customers, NOT the federal government. It is discriminatory to cover one elective medicine and not another. Neither is necessary though and that is what insurance is supposed to cover.

As far as I know, Viagra doesn't treat anything other than it was intended to.. (well maybe depression) but birth control does.

It also is linked to preventing cancer (30,000 cases each year according to cancer.org)

Similar to health insurance offering discounts for gym memberships, maybe covering birth control makes a ton of sense for them?

Since the insurance companies are not raising hell over this, I am guessing they don't want to be a part of the argument but they know it makes fiscal sense for them to cover it.
 
Or they can make money off of it. They will not cover it for free, they will raise their rates.

And nobody has raised any concerns here about covering the pill for other medically-relevant/necessary uses, insurance companies already cover it for those uses. Just shouldn't be covered for elective birth control uses and that is what Fluke is whining over.
 
Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Getting back to the original issue 2 points:

1. Contraceptive drugs are frequently prescribed for medical conditions unrelated to birth control such as ovarian cysts among others.

2. Since most prescription plans cover viagra why shouldn't they also cover contraceptive prescriptions. Is it not essentially the same thing. Once again a double standard in effect.

Tom K

Gee, I guess I am losing it. I have read the OP and its underlying thread is that Limbaugh disparaged a political activist/co-ed. When did it shift to the merits of the Obama health regs?

Did we not discuss the latter regs at length in a thread devoted to it?

On the OP, can anyone please tell me exactly what Limbaugh said? I am afraid I rarely listen to him.
 
Originally posted by Old_alum:

can anyone please tell me exactly what Limbaugh said? I am afraid I rarely listen to him.

It's been on every radio newscast, TV station, newspaper and all over the internet. I'm sure you know very well what he said. No one ever accused you of not researching things. So if you want to state your opinion just do it without the usual games.

TK
 
The general slant is all over the Internet. But I have not heard nor seen his exact statements. There are a deluge of opinions. No quotations.

Ok. I'll ''research'' it further as you suggest.
 
What Rush Limbaugh said was indefensible, and should be considered to be way out of bounds. I don't care if Bill Maher and Ed Schultz say similar things about Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin, it's all garbage.

Rush's comments also, once again, managed to take conservatives and Republicans way off the issues they should have been talking about.

Yes, a woman has a right to buy contraception. However, she does not have the right to have her employer/school pay for it. If my faith required that I keep a kosher diet, that does not mean it is my "right" to have anyone else pay for that either. It's the old positive rights vs. negative rights argument.

Tom brings up an interesting point about Viagra being covered by insurance companies, therefore why not contraception? I could counter with the fact that in New Jersey, everyone's basic coverage is required to cover more than 30 specific items, including things such as eating disorders. I do not need that coverage, and would prefer to save a small amount on my premium as opposed to paying for it.

However, that part of the argument goes to the underlying deeper problems with healthcare in this country. It should not be provided by your employer in the first place. The only reason employers do cover it is because it became part of our culture during WWII salary caps, and because it is treated differently in the tax code than individual purchases.

The new federal law takes that misguided system, and makes it permanent for everyone who works for a company with 50 or more people. Then, you have the federal government issuing new regulations such as the contraception issue, that further intrude on the doctor/patient/employer/employee relationships.

Again, these are all issues the Republicans should have used the Fluke case to discuss. Instead, we're in a poop toss about whose comments toward women are worse, and why people with smaller audiences can get away with so much more.
 
The comments about Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher & Ed Schultz are interesting. I won't comment on Schultz because I do not know who he is & have never listened to him. Regarding Limbaugh and Maher both are essentially entertainers who have specific audiences with predetermined views that they cater to. Both try to be outragious, create controversy and frequently go over the line of decency. This time Rush went way over that line and his comments are indefensable. However neither is what you would call a political analyst in the true sense if the word. You will never get a reasonable, intelligent or unbiased viewpoint from either nor would this be the place to go when you are seeking accurate information on any topic.

I agree with Hall on the Hill and Piratefan1 that Rush has done a disservice to the conservative position by changing the discussion from the merits of the legislation to Ms Fluke's sex life and of course to Rush himself.

Tom K
This post was edited on 3/9 11:56 AM by SnakeTom
 
A few points that most seem to agree on:

This whole 'story' should be filed under inconsequential .

1. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and deserves little thoughtful concern.

2. No one should disparage anyone. Period. Ad hominem attacks are specious.

3. This uproar is a distraction from important issues.

4. If anyone is going to attack someone---even for that person making disparaging remarks about another---it seems the least one can do would be to read or listen to what was actually said before jumping on a media bandwagon.

(The reason I bring this last point up is that many do go off half-cocked when spurred by the media----on both sides. Despite my reputed www 'research' skills, I gave up trying to find out exactly what Limbaugh said---even though it is inconsequential----to make this point. But, alas, I failed.)


NO one should care about that, either! LOL
This post was edited on 3/9 4:18 PM by Old_alum
 
This time at least the sponsors seem to be reacting to Rush's comments even if others won't. The fact that he continues to have an audience is a sad statement about our country.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT