Limbaugh Controversy

[Gobblemeister]

For those not familiar radio personality Rush Limbaugh was recently under fire for making derogatory statements on his show about a law student who was speaking out in support for the bill that, as I understand, would require insurance companies to provide contraceptives as part of their policy.

His statement essentially boils down to her saying that the cost of contraceptives is a heavy burden on a student trying to pay for school like herself and Limbaugh essentially saying that if 'she wants the government to pay for her to have sex then doesn't that make her a slut, a prostitute?' (Not a quote just paraphrasing)

Now, if you ask me, despite his 'choice' wording he brings up a good point. If you can't afford contraception then why are you having sex? Should birth control really be part of health insurance?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 34 minutes ago, Gobblemeister wrote: Now, if you ask me, despite his 'choice' wording he brings up a good point. If you can't afford contraception then why are you having sex? Should birth control really be part of health insurance?

The thing is that birth control pills aren't used solely for pregnancy prevention, but also has many other uses, such as preventing different forms of cancer (take it for 5 years and the risk of ovarian cancer decreases by 50%, take it for 10 and it's 80%), and can also be prescribed to alleviate menstrual cramps, as well as for mild to moderate cases of acne. These are the health benefits that Fluke testified about, not pregnancy prevention.

Medical insurance companies would save money by providing for contraceptives because it's much costlier to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term than it is to foot the bill for the birth control pill. (Heh, poetry)

[Warforger]

Wait a minute, are contraceptives THAT expensive? Ok I guess if you're a law student that may make some sense, but then why not 1. Just go petition the companies themselves first tell them that it would be a good idea as it would lower their costs then 2. go to the state government and make that one do it, why go to the Federal government? Wouldn't it make more sense that if you buy contraceptives that the healthcare companies would lower your rates?

[MrFlopz]

Although I don't think insurance companies should provide contraception, Rush Limbaugh's response was childish and needlessly offensive.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 35 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote: I don't think insurance companies should provide contraception

Oh look, a guy who doesn't care about women's health! Alright, tell us why you think women who can't afford contraceptives on their own should have to run the risk of getting cancer.

[MrFlopz]

At 13 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 35 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote: I don't think insurance companies should provide contraception

Oh look, a guy who doesn't care about women's health! Alright, tell us why you think women who can't afford contraceptives on their own should have to run the risk of getting cancer.

Of course. Disagreeing opinion = misogyny. You're only going to alienate potential supporters with that kind of attitude. I don't think many people are suffering because they can't afford contraception. If someone is bellow the poverty line and legitimately cannot afford contraception, they should receive it. But this is a country where you need to pay for food and water. Why should contraception be a God given right when there are children suffering from malnourishment because their parents cannot afford a healthy diet to live off of? I'm not entirely opposed to this idea, but it just seems like there are more important issues to take care first. Again, this is coming from someone who views women as objects who are mentally inferior to men so please disregard my comments.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 17 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 35 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote: I don't think insurance companies should provide contraception

Oh look, a guy who doesn't care about women's health! Alright, tell us why you think women who can't afford contraceptives on their own should have to run the risk of getting cancer.

*rolls up sleeves*

If you can't afford contraceptives, you have plenty of options to keep having sex while not getting pregnant. Further more, lower prices on pharmaceuticals can be obtained by having the government relinquish its monopoly on them and opening up to competition. But of course an establishment suck up like Rush would never suggest such a thing in face of his corporate buddies who benefit so much from cronyism. Finally, I would like to see the source people have been using to say that the only way for a woman to avoid cancer is to have sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis while taking contraceptives to stop the risk of pregnancy, and that this whole bs doesn't work the same way it works for men where they can just wack it and poof chance of cancer averted by .01%.

[All-American-Badass]

The thing is they have community clinics and other places where you can get contraceptive for free/cheap. If the law student chick wants them so badly, can go get them from there instead of bitching to congress about how her university should be forced by the federal government to provide it, in fact the government should have never butted their heads into this in the first place.

[Elfer]

Yeah, Limbaugh is right, health insurance covering contraceptives makes a woman a prostitute, much like the way that my health insurance covers injuries sustained in a car crash, and that makes me a professional race car driver.

But seriously folks, contraception for students isn't a real public health issue, we all know that sexually active college students are few and far between.

[Camarohusky]

Just goes to show that how you say something is 1000 times more important than what you say.

I don't believe any of what he said, but he does make a valid rational point. Had he targetted his vitriol at "young women" or even better "young people" and said the same exact comments he wouldn't be in trouble. However he chose to pick on a specific young woman who was doing nothing more than advocating for what she believes in. This single targetting changed his fiery bullshit into a personal attack, and anrgy vitriol into flat out intimidation.

It is nice to see advertisers dropping his ass, but still sad to know that there is a chunk of people who are so dumb as to eat his shit up regardless.

[Th-e]

At 3 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
It is nice to see advertisers dropping his ass, but still sad to know that there is a chunk of people who are so dumb as to eat his shit up regardless.

When I think of Limbaugh, I tend to wonder why advertisers and radio stations didn't drop him sooner. While his "slut" comments may have been the trigger, hasn't Limbaugh done a lot of this offensive, right-wing BS before?

I am a Republican, but nothing like Limbaugh; I consider myself a moderate. Rush is a right-wing extremist... And I don't see how anybody can take this guy seriously.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 8 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: Of course. Disagreeing opinion = misogyny.

Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily, but when someone says that they are against something that is important to women's health and well being, then that person is either completely ignorant of that fact, or he is a misogynist.

So which is it? Are you a misogynist or are you just ignorant?

I don't think many people are suffering because they can't afford contraception.

Let's ignore the proven health benefits of taking birth control for a second and let's look at the latter part of your assertion: women who can't afford contraception. What we're talking about is health insurance coverage, so the question is simply, why shouldn't health insurance companies cover prescription contracetive pills when they are 1) of demonstrable benefit when it comes to preventing ovarian cancer, 2) demonstrably effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and 3) saves both the insurance companies and society more money due to the prevention of the previous two conditions I mentioned?

If someone is bellow the poverty line and legitimately cannot afford contraception, they should receive it. But this is a country where you need to pay for food and water. Why should contraception be a God given right when there are children suffering from malnourishment because their parents cannot afford a healthy diet to live off of?

Again, this is about coverage in insurance plans that people are already paying for. It's not like it's being given out for free; people pay for their insurance, and they get the coverage. Adding birth control will decrease costs in the long run.

I'm not entirely opposed to this idea

Well, you have a funny way of showing it.

but it just seems like there are more important issues to take care first.

I agree. This shouldn't be a big issue. It is a common sense measure that in any logical world would be greeted with overwhelming support, and polling shows that that holds true for a majority of the country, but then there's people like you and the religious right-wing Republicans in congress who are either too ignorant or too misogynistic to comprehend the benefits.

Again, this is coming from someone who views women as objects who are mentally inferior to men so please disregard my comments.

No, as much as you'd probably like to be left to your oblivion, I can't let such moronic statememts go unanswered. You have to attack ignorance at it's source, and your head seems to be at the epicenter of it.

At 9 hours ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: If you can't afford contraceptives, you have plenty of options to keep having sex while not getting pregnant.

But as stated, having access to birth control is not always simply about not getting pregnant. It has a number of health benefits that are completely unrelated to sex.

Further more, lower prices on pharmaceuticals can be obtained by having the government relinquish its monopoly on them and opening up to competition. But of course an establishment suck up like Rush would never suggest such a thing in face of his corporate buddies who benefit so much from cronyism.

I unsure if you wrote "government" instead of "pharmaceutical corporations" by accident, but that's the only way your sentence makes any sense. The government doesn't have a monopoly on medicine, big pharma does. I guess you could say that the government is allowing big pharma in the US to have a monopoly by not allowing imports from outside of the country and from giving up on the ability of the government to bargain for better prices, and that I would agree with.

Finally, I would like to see the source people have been using to say that the only way for a woman to avoid cancer is to have sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis while taking contraceptives to stop the risk of pregnancy, and that this whole bs doesn't work the same way it works for men where they can just wack it and poof chance of cancer averted by .01%.

Luckily, having sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis is not a requirement for birth control pills to work. Idiot.

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/1407899/reload=0;jsessionid=
K9UhH9VmVU3dUOi5atVw.2

"The risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of [oral contraceptive] use; we noted a 10-12% decrease in risk with 1 year of use and approximately a 50% decrease after 5 years of use."

[Camarohusky]

At 10 hours ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: Further more, lower prices on pharmaceuticals can be obtained by having the government relinquish its monopoly on them and opening up to competition.

If only the commentors on this issue had any clue what actually goes on there...

Yes, pharmaceutical companies have a monopoly on their durgs. It's called a patent. But guess what? Regular patents last 20 years. Pharmaceutical patents last 4.

So when you claim the government has given the pharmaceutical companies a monopoly you fail to realize the government has actually eroded 80% of their monopoly.

Such blatant ignorance of how the system works is exactly why we have idiots who think contraceptives are a massive strain on our health system. Making baseless claims is easy. Actually knowing what you are talking about is a virtue.

[adrshepard]

At 2 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily, but when someone says that they are against something that is important to women's health and well being, then that person is either completely ignorant of that fact, or he is a misogynist.

No one here is against birth control. We are against paying for it so someone else can get it for free.

Let's ignore the proven health benefits of taking birth control for a second and let's look at the latter part of your assertion: women who can't afford contraception.

Let's also look at the associated risk of getting other cancers (liver, breast, cervical) which increases with the use of oral contraceptives.

What we're talking about is health insurance coverage, so the question is simply, why shouldn't health insurance companies cover prescription contracetive pills when they are 1) of demonstrable benefit when it comes to preventing ovarian cancer,

You know what else prevents cancer? Orange juice. Should insurance companies pay for that?

Again, this is about coverage in insurance plans that people are already paying for. It's not like it's being given out for free; people pay for their insurance, and they get the coverage. Adding birth control will decrease costs in the long run.

No, it isn't, because the cost of birth control is added on the liability side of the insurance company's equation, with no copay to mitigate the cost. Everyone's premiums will increase as a result, because the insurance company won't just choose to absorb the cost.

At 9 hours ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: If you can't afford contraceptives, you have plenty of options to keep having sex while not getting pregnant.

But as stated, having access to birth control is not always simply about not getting pregnant. It has a number of health benefits that are completely unrelated to sex.

By number, you must mean "two," because decreasing cancer risk is the only factor worth considering. We get it; acne and cramps suck. You know what else sucks? Hemorrhoids. But you don't see anyone going out and demanding they get Preparation H for free, now do you?

Sarah Fluke is not a slut (even though she speaks on behalf of them--look at the first part of her testimony); she's a bitch whose actions have done nothing but reinforce mysogeny. Think about it:
She finds out a school doesn't provide free birth control, which is incredibly important to her, but attends anyway (spiteful and insistent)
She continually harasses the administration to change their policy for THREE whole years (nagging)
She goes to congress and tells about women who spend all their money on something they don't particularly need and barely have enough left to feed themselves (can't manage money)
Rather than suck it up and overcome the unique challenges of womanhood, she complains that women can't do it on their own and need someone, in this case the government, to intervene and save the day (damsel in distress)

Her testimony is an argument against the claims verification process at Georgetown, not against making women pay for their own contraception.

At 2 hours ago, Th-e wrote:

It is nice to see advertisers dropping his ass, but still sad to know that there is a chunk of people who are so dumb as to eat his shit up regardless.

You could say the same thing about any political pundit.

When I think of Limbaugh, I tend to wonder why advertisers and radio stations didn't drop him sooner.

Because he has an audience of 20 million people. In a month, when nobody cares about Sarah Fluke anymore, he'll get a whole other slew of companies begging to advertise on his show.

[Camarohusky]

At 39 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: Sarah Fluke is not a slut (even though she speaks on behalf of them--look at the first part of her testimony); she's a bitch whose actions have done nothing but reinforce mysogeny.

Really? Did you learn nothing?

[MrFlopz]

At 9 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 39 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: Sarah Fluke is not a slut (even though she speaks on behalf of them--look at the first part of her testimony); she's a bitch whose actions have done nothing but reinforce mysogeny.

Really? Did you learn nothing?

Yes please. Now is not the time to Rush Limbaugh. You had a valid argument.

[Proteas]

At 13 hours ago, All-American-Badass wrote: The thing is they have community clinics and other places where you can get contraceptive for free/cheap. If the law student chick wants them so badly, can go get them from there instead of bitching to congress about how her university should be forced by the federal government to provide it, in fact the government should have never butted their heads into this in the first place.

And as usual, the simple and logical solution is ignored in favor of continued bitching back and forth about the issue at hand.

[adrshepard]

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 39 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: Sarah Fluke is not a slut (even though she speaks on behalf of them--look at the first part of her testimony); she's a bitch whose actions have done nothing but reinforce mysogeny.

Really? Did you learn nothing?

I learned:
"Misogyny" is spelled with an "i" and another "y."

Do you not dispute what I said? In the first few paragraphs of her remarks she's not talking about people with a medical need for birth control pills; she's talking about people "who had to go without contraception" because they couldn't afford the $85/month pills. Any woman not taking the pill and who can't get a guy to wear a condom but screws him anyway is a slut.

Her argument is that the approval process for Georgetown is screwed up, not "all forms of contraception should be paid for, at least partially, by someone other than the person using them."

[Angry-Hatter]

At 26 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: No one here is against birth control. We are against paying for it so someone else can get it for free.

Then you're in luck, because no one is arguing for women getting contraceptives for free, only that it should be covered by the insurance plans they are already paying for.

Let's also look at the associated risk of getting other cancers (liver, breast, cervical) which increases with the use of oral contraceptives.

Sure.

Liver cancer:

Yes, oral contraceptives increase the risk of liver cancer, BUT, only in women who has a low risk of contracting liver cancer, such as white women in the US and Europe. Women of African and Asian descent, who have a naturally high risk of getting liver cancer, show no increase in liver cancer from oral contraceptives. However, liver cancer is very rare in the first place, so the impact of oral contraceptives is negligable.

Breast cancer:

Some studies have shown a slight increase in breast cancer among those women who use oral contraceptives over a long period of time, but others, such as the one I'm linking to, found no significant increase in breast cancer. At best, it's an open question.

Cervical cancer:

Yes, using oral contraceptives can make developing cervical cancer as much as four times as likely as normal, but only if you have the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which has been shown to be present in 99% of all cases of cervical cancer. Since there is an effective vaccine against HPV, only those who haven't had the vaccine, or those who have already been infected with the virus should be worried.

You know what else prevents cancer? Orange juice. Should insurance companies pay for that?

Wow, orange juice decreases the risk of developing certain forms of cancer by as much as 50%-80%!? That's amazing! I'd love it if you could direct me to that study!

And to answer your bullshit rhetorical question: YES. If orange juice was somehow the miracle cure for cancer that you claim it is, then it WOULD be covered. Everyone would be drinking orange juice; there'd be laws mandating it.

Again, this is about coverage in insurance plans that people are already paying for. It's not like it's being given out for free; people pay for their insurance, and they get the coverage. Adding birth control will decrease costs in the long run.

No, it isn't, because the cost of birth control is added on the liability side of the insurance company's equation, with no copay to mitigate the cost. Everyone's premiums will increase as a result, because the insurance company won't just choose to absorb the cost.

Ok, I confess I'm not 100% sure about how the insurance system works in the US, but correct me if I'm wrong here; if a person gets cancer, or if a woman becomes pregnant, the cost to pay for the treatment that comes with those conditions get paid for through the insurance the bought, right? If more people get cancer or have babies (which is relatively costly), then insurance premiums go up, right? And the opposite is true, that premiums go down when LESS people get cancer or have babies, right?

So, doesn't it logically follow that if you pay ahead of time to cover prescription birth control, which decreases both of these things, cancer and pregnancy, then even if it costs a little more in the short run to provide this preventative care, costs would eventually go down when insurance companies have to pay for less cancer patients and pregnancies?

But as stated, having access to birth control is not always simply about not getting pregnant. It has a number of health benefits that are completely unrelated to sex.

By number, you must mean "two," because decreasing cancer risk is the only factor worth considering. We get it; acne and cramps suck. You know what else sucks? Hemorrhoids. But you don't see anyone going out and demanding they get Preparation H for free, now do you?

My girlfriend gets bad cramps, and along with them, severe migranes, which significantly impedes her ability to enjoy life. Once it got so bad that she actually fainted and was out cold for several minutes, and had to go to the hospital. A little while ago, she started taking oral contraceptives, and now, her cramps are much less painful, and her migranes are completely gone.

So tell me, you condescending fuck, what was that you said about decreasing cancer risk being the ONLY factor worth concidering?

Sarah Fluke is not a slut (even though she speaks on behalf of them--look at the first part of her testimony); she's a bitch whose actions have done nothing but reinforce mysogeny. Think about it:
She finds out a school doesn't provide free birth control, which is incredibly important to her, but attends anyway (spiteful and insistent)
She continually harasses the administration to change their policy for THREE whole years (nagging)
She goes to congress and tells about women who spend all their money on something they don't particularly need and barely have enough left to feed themselves (can't manage money)
Rather than suck it up and overcome the unique challenges of womanhood, she complains that women can't do it on their own and need someone, in this case the government, to intervene and save the day (damsel in distress)

Her testimony is an argument against the claims verification process at Georgetown, not against making women pay for their own contraception.

As if your previous displays of mindblowing ignorance wasn't enough evidence to how much of a misogynistic pig you are, I point to the preceeding section as ultimate proof.

When I think of Limbaugh, I tend to wonder why advertisers and radio stations didn't drop him sooner.

Because he has an audience of 20 million people. In a month, when nobody cares about Sarah Fluke anymore, he'll get a whole other slew of companies begging to advertise on his show.

HAH! What a joke. Limbaugh doesn't have anywhere NEAR 20 million people listening. You must not have read about how laughably inaccurate and illogical the method for recording radio listeners is. Add to this that with the new and more accurate method of recording what people actually listen to on the radio, Rush is way down, and dropping fast; a 33% drop in the last 3 months.

Reality has caught up, and conservative talk radio is on it's way out.

[Camarohusky]

At 42 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote:

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote: Really? Did you learn nothing?

I learned:
"Misogyny" is spelled with an "i" and another "y."

What you didn't lear:
Personally attacking solely because of the opinion she expressed. I was calling you out for doing exactly what Rush did. You know how to make cogent arguments while being civil. ihave seen you do it. Now, just because Rush Limbaugh shoots his lazy mouth and personally attacks someone doesn't mean you should either.

Do you not dispute what I said? In the first few paragraphs of her remarks she's not talking about people with a medical need for birth control pills; she's talking about people "who had to go without contraception" because they couldn't afford the $85/month pills. Any woman not taking the pill and who can't get a guy to wear a condom but screws him anyway is a slut.

Let me guess, you have never been near the point of having sex, have you? Life isn't always crystal clear when the blood goes south of the Equator.

Also, to dispute what you said about her:

She finds out a school doesn't provide free birth control, which is incredibly important to her, but attends anyway (spiteful and insistent)

Ah yes, a non-Law student/Attorney brushing of Georgetown Law as if it were the educational equivalent of Middle Tennessee State. Georgetown is very much in top tier of law schools. While it may not be Harvard, Stanford, or Yale, Georgetown is essentially the place to go if you want to work in the federal government as an attorney. One of my professors went there and his reward for attending such a good school was working as legal aide to the Presdient. THAT is likely why she went to Georgetown, not to pick a fight.

Think of it like getting into Harvard just to make a political statement about a general topic. Not how it works.

She continually harasses the administration to change their policy for THREE whole years (nagging)

Again, an outsider to the Attorney world looking in and making baseless assumptions. In the attorney world this is called "Good Advocacy"

She goes to congress and tells about women who spend all their money on something they don't particularly need and barely have enough left to feed themselves (can't manage money)

Now I don't remember any of her speech being about the spending habits of young females.

Rather than suck it up and overcome the unique challenges of womanhood, she complains that women can't do it on their own and need someone, in this case the government, to intervene and save the day (damsel in distress)

And now we have an outsider top the world of women making a comment on how easy it is to be a woman.

Are you now understanding why this has beconme such a hot button issue?

Her argument is that the approval process for Georgetown is screwed up, not "all forms of contraception should be paid for, at least partially, by someone other than the person using them."

The funny thing is, the girls are paying for them in the form of health insurance. It's kind of like paying for "full coverage" auto insurance but not getting windshield ding repair. Think about it.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 7 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 9 hours ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: If you can't afford contraceptives, you have plenty of options to keep having sex while not getting pregnant.

But as stated, having access to birth control is not always simply about not getting pregnant. It has a number of health benefits that are completely unrelated to sex.

there are also vitamin tablets, and foods that are good for you as well, but the problem is, if they were free, no one would waste their time making them, and there for, no one would have them.

Further more, lower prices on pharmaceuticals can be obtained by having the government relinquish its monopoly on them and opening up to competition. But of course an establishment suck up like Rush would never suggest such a thing in face of his corporate buddies who benefit so much from cronyism.

Finally, I would like to see the source people have been using to say that the only way for a woman to avoid cancer is to have sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis while taking contraceptives to stop the risk of pregnancy, and that this whole bs doesn't work the same way it works for men where they can just wack it and poof chance of cancer averted by .01%.

Luckily, having sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis is not a requirement for birth control pills to work. Idiot.

now we get some where, so the pills itself do it? I'm sorry the only thing people of your stance have been able to cough up is "SO YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM?" and most recently from you

"idiot"
But how is that Debt doing for you smartie pants?

its a cool story bro, and I'm glad you care enough about strangers to have the government steal from other strangers to give to those strangers. Just because something is good for your doesn't mean you should mandate that everyone else pay for you to get it. It isn't free if you are still paying for it.

The people who made this stuff had to pay money to do it.
They did not do it for free.
You can't get it for free.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5 minutes ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: But how is that Debt doing for you smartie pants?

Ooooh... I just realized that you have no idea what you're talking about. This rule that the President is proposing wouldn't cost one cent of taxpayer money to impliment, and the fact that you didn't know that tells me how much you know about the topic being discussed.

Read up, and then come back.

[djack]

At 1 hour ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 26 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: No one here is against birth control. We are against paying for it so someone else can get it for free.

Then you're in luck, because no one is arguing for women getting contraceptives for free, only that it should be covered by the insurance plans they are already paying for.

The argument is that insurance companies should pay for it and insurance companies would raise everyone's premiums to compensate for the cost. That's how insurance companies work, they charge everyone some money and when some people need money because they're sick or injured the company can afford to pay them because the total amount their bringing in from all their customers is more than enough to compensate for the amount they pay out.

Liver cancer:
Yes, oral contraceptives increase the risk of liver cancer

Breast cancer:
Some studies have shown a slight increase in breast cancer but others found no significant increase in breast cancer. At best, it's an open question.

Cervical cancer:
Yes, using oral contraceptives can make developing cervical cancer as much as four times as likely as normal, but only if you have the Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

So basically there are two types of cancer that are definitely increased by oral contraceptives and one that might be but you think that should all be ignored for the benefits of reducing one type of cancer and relieving cramps? Even assuming breast cancer is a no that's still really bad odds. Especially because when someone gets a vaccine it involves injecting a weakened form of the virus so that the body knows how to fight it which means anyone with the HPV vaccine definitely has HPV and is only increasing their likelihood of getting cervical cancer. That's a horrible plan.

You know what else prevents cancer? Orange juice. Should insurance companies pay for that?

Wow, orange juice decreases the risk of developing certain forms of cancer by as much as 50%-80%!? That's amazing! I'd love it if you could direct me to that study!

And to answer your bullshit rhetorical question: YES. If orange juice was somehow the miracle cure for cancer that you claim it is, then it WOULD be covered. Everyone would be drinking orange juice; there'd be laws mandating it.

Just like there are laws mandating the pill, right? And there are laws mandating walnuts? Give me a break the government can't propose any law without people jumping at the chance to declare it a violation of their rights.

Again, this is about coverage in insurance plans that people are already paying for. It's not like it's being given out for free; people pay for their insurance, and they get the coverage. Adding birth control will decrease costs in the long run.

No, it isn't, because the cost of birth control is added on the liability side of the insurance company's equation, with no copay to mitigate the cost. Everyone's premiums will increase as a result, because the insurance company won't just choose to absorb the cost.

Ok, I confess I'm not 100% sure about how the insurance system works in the US, but correct me if I'm wrong here; if a person gets cancer, or if a woman becomes pregnant, the cost to pay for the treatment that comes with those conditions get paid for through the insurance the bought, right? If more people get cancer or have babies (which is relatively costly), then insurance premiums go up, right? And the opposite is true, that premiums go down when LESS people get cancer or have babies, right?

So, doesn't it logically follow that if you pay ahead of time to cover prescription birth control, which decreases both of these things, cancer and pregnancy, then even if it costs a little more in the short run to provide this preventative care, costs would eventually go down when insurance companies have to pay for less cancer patients and pregnancies?

Not really. People will still be getting pregnant for various reasons and since it doesn't actually decrease the number of people getting cancer there's no reason to believe that rates would go down at all. That just leaves the increase in premiums that come from people getting birth control pills payed for by their insurance.

But as stated, having access to birth control is not always simply about not getting pregnant. It has a number of health benefits that are completely unrelated to sex.

By number, you must mean "two," because decreasing cancer risk is the only factor worth considering. We get it; acne and cramps suck. You know what else sucks? Hemorrhoids. But you don't see anyone going out and demanding they get Preparation H for free, now do you?

My girlfriend gets bad cramps, and along with them, severe migranes, which significantly impedes her ability to enjoy life. Once it got so bad that she actually fainted and was out cold for several minutes, and had to go to the hospital. A little while ago, she started taking oral contraceptives, and now, her cramps are much less painful, and her migranes are completely gone.

So tell me, you condescending fuck, what was that you said about decreasing cancer risk being the ONLY factor worth concidering?

You're girlfriend has a rare reaction, since most women don't get cramps and migraines bad enough to be hospitalized it isn't worth considering when you're talking about requiring insurance companies to pay for contraception. He's not being a condescending fuck, you're just being an overly emotional ass.

HAH! What a joke. Limbaugh doesn't have anywhere NEAR 20 million people listening. You must not have read about how laughably inaccurate and illogical the method for recording radio listeners is. Add to this that with the new and more accurate method of recording what people actually listen to on the radio, Rush is way down, and dropping fast; a 33% drop in the last 3 months.

Okay, how many people are listening? You're article doesn't actually dispute the number 20 million it just says that the number of listeners has dropped recently but Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are still the #1 and #2 most listened to radio show hosts. That's more than enough reason for advertisers to want time slots during his show.

Reality has caught up, and conservative talk radio is on it's way out.

See above about the #1 and #2.

[Proteas]

Gentlemen, why do you insist on ignoring valid points made in this topic?

The woman at the center of all this made the point -- in front of the entire world -- that women at her college forgo the use of contraception because they simply can't afford it. Which brings up two excellent points that have yet to be addressed because you've either sought to ignore them or you've sought to ridicule the individual making them.

1) If you cannot afford to buy contraception on your own, and you willingly go without it, what does that make you?
2) Why would you willfully have unprotected sex if you can't afford birth control?

You can walk into any Health Department and ask for condoms for free. As a woman, you can walk into any Health Department and get Birth Control for free. The woman at the center of all this may very well bring up a valid point about health insurance companies covering the cost of birth control, but she also willfully airs her own ignorance for the world to see by saying that she and other students like her at Georgetown University are having to go without.

Georgetown may not BE Middle Tennessee State University, as Camarohusky pointed out, but based on what this particular student is saying, she (and others like her) might as well be attending there anyway. They'd fit right in.

[Camarohusky]

At 56 minutes ago, djack wrote: The argument is that insurance companies should pay for it and insurance companies would raise everyone's premiums to compensate for the cost. That's how insurance companies work, they charge everyone some money and when some people need money because they're sick or injured the company can afford to pay them because the total amount their bringing in from all their customers is more than enough to compensate for the amount they pay out.

Woo! Math time!

Let's work this bitch out.

K, so My wife and I paid $3,000 out of pocket for her pregnancy. Assuming the standard 70-90% coverage, that means the insuarnce spent anywhere from $7,000 to $27,000.

So, let's assume we have som real sexs kittens. You know, real sluts who need $200 of contracpetives a year (a nuva ring, the pill, 3 boxes of condoms, and an IUD).

That means 1 baby birth takes up as much insurance money 35-135 months (or people per month usage) of massive contraception. Drop the contraceptive cost to $85 and the numbers change to 82-317. Bump this down to say half coverage of that $85 (40 is easier to math than 42.5) and then you have 175-675 months/personmonths.

That's a lot of people to be banking on being able to control their sex drive or shoot/recieve blanks.

In other words, the costs of not using contraception during sex are astronomically higher for the community just on the basis of unwanted pregnancy. Count in STDs, such as life time treatment of Herpes, the Clap, or the HIV.

So when Limbaugh says you're paying for women to have sex, you already are. Contraception vastly decreases the amount of your money going to sex.

So, please stop using this argument, the math just does not support it.

[djack]

At 56 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 56 minutes ago, djack wrote: The argument is that insurance companies should pay for it and insurance companies would raise everyone's premiums to compensate for the cost. That's how insurance companies work, they charge everyone some money and when some people need money because they're sick or injured the company can afford to pay them because the total amount their bringing in from all their customers is more than enough to compensate for the amount they pay out.

Woo! Math time!

Let's work this bitch out.

K, so My wife and I paid $3,000 out of pocket for her pregnancy. Assuming the standard 70-90% coverage, that means the insuarnce spent anywhere from $7,000 to $27,000.

So, let's assume we have some real sex kittens. You know, real sluts who need $200 of contracpetives a year (a nuva ring, the pill, 3 boxes of condoms, and an IUD).

That means 1 baby birth takes up as much insurance money 35-135 months (or people per month usage) of massive contraception. Drop the contraceptive cost to $85 and the numbers change to 82-317. Bump this down to say half coverage of that $85 (40 is easier to math than 42.5) and then you have 175-675 months/personmonths.

That's a lot of people to be banking on being able to control their sex drive or shoot/recieve blanks.

In other words, the costs of not using contraception during sex are astronomically higher for the community just on the basis of unwanted pregnancy. Count in STDs, such as life time treatment of Herpes, the Clap, or the HIV.

So when Limbaugh says you're paying for women to have sex, you already are. Contraception vastly decreases the amount of your money going to sex.

So, please stop using this argument, the math just does not support it.

I was responding specifically to Hatter's claim that we wouldn't wind up paying for the contraception, which seemed to come from some peoples' misconception that it's the government paying for it with tax dollars, but the public would still be paying for it just in a different way. However, since you brought up the math I should point out that the number from adrshepard (I haven't verified this nor do I have any intention of actually looking up any specific numbers on the issue as I really don't care about the overall issue, I just found that post too stupid to ignore especially his comments about the cancer risks) is $85 per month for women to use oral contraceptives which works out to over $1000 a year not 200. I'd also like to point out that your figures are based on the assumption that either insurance pays for contraceptives or no one does which isn't accurate as contraception is so much a part of our culture that when you say "The Pill" everyone in the U.S. knows that means the birth control pill which means that you'd have to factor in how many women aren't using contraceptives since they can't afford them but still have insurance. So $1000 per month per woman that is now getting birth control from insurance versus the _% of insured women that aren't using any contraception and are still sexually active and thus at risk for costing the company $25,000 (easier math while still assuming worst case scenario).

[MrFlopz]

I like the direction this debate is going. Less insults and emotional appeals and more facts and numbers.

[Camarohusky]

At 25 minutes ago, djack wrote: I was responding specifically to Hatter's claim that we wouldn't wind up paying for the contraception, which seemed to come from some peoples' misconception that it's the government paying for it with tax dollars, but the public would still be paying for it just in a different way.

Understood. That is exactly how isurance works.

However, since you brought up the math I should point out that the number from adrshepard (I haven't verified this nor do I have any intention of actually looking up any specific numbers on the issue as I really don't care about the overall issue, I just found that post too stupid to ignore especially his comments about the cancer risks) is $85 per month for women to use oral contraceptives which works out to over $1000 a year not 200.

My calc was ranging from $40-$200 a month, not per year.

I'd also like to point out that your figures are based on the assumption that either insurance pays for contraceptives or no one does which isn't accurate as contraception is so much a part of our culture that when you say "The Pill" everyone in the U.S. knows that means the birth control pill which means that you'd have to factor in how many women aren't using contraceptives since they can't afford them but still have insurance.

I know. My calc took in a couple things. First it takes in the true motive of this fight: to stop contraception altogehter. Second I use it to make the arguement that society, as a cost savings measure, should pay for and supply contraception. My calc looked at one possibility solely in the medical field. If you add in STDs, and then other costs relarted to parenting of an unwanted child (likely child welfare involvement, higher risk for child delinquency, and so on) the pure monetary cost savings of contraception are flat out humongous.

So $1000 per month per woman that is now getting birth control from insurance versus the _% of insured women that aren't using any contraception and are still sexually active and thus at risk for costing the company $25,000 (easier math while still assuming worst case scenario).

Which is it? $1,000 per month or per year? whther it takes 25 months and 25 years to equal the cost of pregnancy present a very different cost perspective.

[djack]

At 15 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: My calc was ranging from $40-$200 a month, not per year.

At 2 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

So, let's assume we have som real sexs kittens. You know, real sluts who need $200 of contracpetives a year (a nuva ring, the pill, 3 boxes of condoms, and an IUD).

This must have been a mistake then, $200 a month ($2400 a year) would definitely be significantly different from $200 a year.

I know. My calc took in a couple things. First it takes in the true motive of this fight: to stop contraception altogehter. Second I use it to make the arguement that society, as a cost savings measure, should pay for and supply contraception. My calc looked at one possibility solely in the medical field. If you add in STDs, and then other costs relarted to parenting of an unwanted child (likely child welfare involvement, higher risk for child delinquency, and so on) the pure monetary cost savings of contraception are flat out humongous.

No argument from me there. I hate it when people say contraceptives shouldn't be used, it just isn't practical in the modern world.

Which is it? $1,000 per month or per year? whether it takes 25 months and 25 years to equal the cost of pregnancy present a very different cost perspective.

Sorry, that was supposed to be per year as well.

[Camarohusky]

At 9 hours ago, RightWingGamer wrote: Guys, Limbaugh just trolled you all. He's been known to do that.

I know. I personally don't really care what he says. I am only here because it's been in the news.

Anyway, I believe this guy actually made the best points about the contraception debate.

For those of us who aren't able to access Youtube (sound and privacy reasons) at any given moment, if you could summarize here.