What an @ss....

[lowrioh]

Rush Limbaugh has done it again. Why, oh why, do they even give him news coverage. No matter what side of the issue you are on, calling someone a slut and a prostitute goes WAY over the line. I am just furious. I doubt that the Georgetown policy is waived for married students....so is a married law student who wants contraceptive a "slut" and a "prostitute"? AND I'm assuming that students pay their own health insurance....so students would be paying for their own BC by paying their premiums.

I guess he never heard the saying "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Why does it seem like the conservative movement forget the bible when it comes to "judge not lest you be judged"...

[vludmilla]

Wow. Thanks for posting. I cannot stand Rush Limbaugh but I often find his rhetoric to be more insidious and more difficult to repudiate (at least for the masses) so I actually appreciate that there is news coverage and video of him saying this. It is so beyond the pale to call a woman who wants birth control to be covered by insurance a slut and a prostitute. I think his call for video of her having sex to be made public just belies his true nature as more than just a misogynist but also as a crude and baseless person.

[hellokitty]

He's a d*ck. I have a hard time understanding how any fan could be a sane person. The stuff that comes out of his mouth is despicable. I wish that he and Ann Coulter would go start their own colony on another planet and just go away.

[arivecchi]

The man is a cancer in our society. I cannot understand how some people look up to him given his vile and unintelligent rhetoric.

[JBaxter]

I'm conservative and don't agree with much of what Rush says he was over the line here. But I also don't agree she needs free birth control. Georgetown Law School really doesn't need to supply anyone's birth control. IMO. But Rush crossed the line with many conservatives too.

[vludmilla]

I'm conservative and don't agree with much of what Rush says he was over the line here. But I also don't agree she needs free birth control. Georgetown Law School really doesn't need to supply anyone's birth control. IMO. But Rush crossed the line with many conservatives too.

I believe she wants the student insurance to cover birth control which isn't exactly the same as wanting free birth control from Georgetown. Students usually pay for the student health insurance that they receive.

[wendibird22]

I think regardless of what side of the BC coverage argument he is on his statements just go way overboard. I am especially disgusted by his statement that if he's going to pay for her BC than she should put sex videos on youtube so that he can see what he's getting for his money. I'm sorry but that is crossing a line.

[larig]

by extension he is applying his logic to any of us using birth control that was paid for by our health insurance, like my IUD. Limbaugh is a misogynist, jerk who doesn't deserve to have airtime.

If you're interested in taking action against him. call his sponsors. I can post a link with more info later.

And, if you haven't seen the video from yesterday when he said that all of us who support insurance paying for our BC should post sex video, here you go. Rush is not only and @ss, he's a pervert. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYxxps6tgSQ&feature=player_embedded)

[larig]

I believe she wants the student insurance to cover birth control which isn't exactly the same as wanting free birth control from Georgetown. Students usually pay for the student health insurance that they receive.

:yeahthat:

At my state school we had access to BC, condoms, cold meds, etc. There are many people taking BC who need it for medical reasons, we all probably know someone in this position.

ETA: I'm just wondering if Rush's insurance pays for his Viagra. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party) ETA2: he wasn't married when he was caught with this...I'm just sayin'. People in glass houses and all that.

[JBaxter]

I believe she wants the student insurance to cover birth control which isn't exactly the same as wanting free birth control from Georgetown. Students usually pay for the student health insurance that they receive.

But isnt Georgetown a Catholic based school. See maybe I do look at it differently. {and I fully believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion} If you apply to a school you should adhere to their rules. There are many other non Catholic based schools with equal reputation she could have applied to.
I also understand that women take BC for many reasons ( medical reasons) but condoms are a $1 a pop. She most probably wouldn't be using 3,000 in 3 yrs.
I am not Catholic but am Christian and do believe in using BC but respect the views of their church. I would also be behind any other group be it Muslim or Jewish on their religious school/hospitals to apply their believes.

But again... his rant was not acceptable and NO my opinion.

[lowrioh]

But isnt Georgetown a Catholic based school. See maybe I do look at it differently. {and I fully believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion} If you apply to a school you should adhere to their rules. There are many other non Catholic based schools with equal reputation she could have applied to.
I also understand that women take BC for many reasons ( medical reasons) but condoms are a $1 a pop. She most probably wouldn't be using 3,000 in 3 yrs.
I am not Catholic but am Christian and do believe in using BC but respect the views of their church. I would also be behind any other group be it Muslim or Jewish on their religious school/hospitals to apply their believes.

But again... his rant was not acceptable and NO my opinion.

I can see your point IF Georgetown was subsidizing the heath insurance costs but they aren't. Students pay for their own health insurance that the university negotiates for them. In fact law students (and most grad programs) REQUIRE you to hold health insurance (although not necessarily the policy they suggest). This is not like a typical employer provided plan where they subsidize the policy.

[mytwosons]

Regardless of anyone's views on birth control, I can't believe anyone would feel he didn't cross way over the line. I can't stand him and think our country would be much better off without him making such offensive statements.

[JBaxter]

I can see your point IF Georgetown was subsidizing the heath insurance costs but they aren't. Students pay for their own health insurance that the university negotiates for them. In fact law students (and most grad programs) REQUIRE you to hold health insurance (although not necessarily the policy they suggest). This is not like a typical employer provided plan where they subsidize the policy.

then private insurance is available. I know I carry my own. If they buy it through Georgetown Law then it is most probably subsidized

but Rush is a douche

[lowrioh]

then private insurance is available. I know I carry my own. If they buy it through Georgetown Law then it is most probably subsidized

but Rush is a douche

I wonder if they deny coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs for unmarried men.....

and when I was in grad school, my health insurance, which I bought through the university, was not subsidized. They just sold it to us.

[MissyAg94]

I understand how you feel. I have similar feelings about Larry Doyle and his recent column on Huffington Post.

[AnnieW625]

I can't stand this man at all. I will tolerate Newt Gingrich more than I will tolerate him. I just wonder if his wife uses birth control....getting the heeby jeebies from just thinking about that makes me wanna :barf:.

On the whole Catholic (I am Catholic) thing I don't think that Georgetown should pay for the birth control if they do not want to. The Catholic church is not a big fan of birth control at all so I see why they wouldn't cover it in their insurance plan for students. At my public university it was covered, but that was public, and it was California in 1998 so things were much different than they would be on the East Coast. We can all make choices in our life and yes insurance is great, but really if preventing a pregnancy is soo important to you then I think it makes sense to skimp in other areas of your life to be able to pay for your birth control on your own esp. if what you like isn't made as a generic and you can't get it for under $10 a month at Target, Wal Mart, or the local drug store. It is common sense planning IMHO.

[Green_Tea]

Rush is such an a$$. His comments are incredibly offensive and misogynistic. Wasn't he supposed to leave the country when Obama won? Why is he still here?

62% of Americans support birth control coverage requirements, including large numbers of Independents and Catholics (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/March/01/Contraception-Rule-Poll.aspx?utm_source=khn&utm_medium=internal&utm_campaign=searched). If they are actually interested in winning this election, Republicans would be wise to walk away from this issue and focus on ones that are likely to draw votes from disillusioned Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

I believe that at least one of Rush's sponsors has pulled their support over this. Hopefully more will and he will realize that there are lines that even he cannot cross.

ETA: I am actually neither here nor there on whether the Catholic Church should be required to cover birth control, per se, but fear that allowing employers to decline to cover procedures and medications based on moral grounds is a slippery slope. What about other issues and conditions that can be impacted by or caused by lifestyle choices? Should employers be allowed to decline to cover meds for diabetes, cervical cancer, lung cancer, emphysema, or heart disease and high blood pressure brought on by lifestyle choices that fly in the face of the employer's ascribed to morals? And where does the denial of birth control coverage leave a woman who's doctor prescribes BCP for non contraceptive purposes?

[MissyAg94]

The freedom to practice religion unfettered by the government is one of the founding principles of our republic. The Constitution should not be ignored based on public opinion polls.

[larig]

I can't stand this man at all. I will tolerate Newt Gingrich more than I will tolerate him. I just wonder if his wife uses birth control....getting the heeby jeebies from just thinking about that makes me wanna :barf:.

On the whole Catholic (I am Catholic) thing I don't think that Georgetown should pay for the birth control if they do not want to. The Catholic church is not a big fan of birth control at all so I see why they wouldn't cover it in their insurance plan for students. At my public university it was covered, but that was public, and it was California in 1998 so things were much different than they would be on the East Coast. We can all make choices in our life and yes insurance is great, but really if preventing a pregnancy is soo important to you then I think it makes sense to skimp in other areas of your life to be able to pay for your birth control on your own esp. if what you like isn't made as a generic and you can't get it for under $10 a month at Target, Wal Mart, or the local drug store. It is common sense planning IMHO.

Annie, as you well know, there are many reasons people need BC aside from actual birth control. Endometriosis, etc. many many reasons. I respectfully disagree that a church or employer should have any say in what kind of drugs I can or cannot take--it's between me and my doctor. It is naive for us to assume it's always about sex.

It's a slippery slope. Let's say your employer were a Scientologist--would you permit him to deny you anti-depression meds? Or perhaps a Jehovah's Witness who might deny you coverage for a blood transfusion? At what point is it NOT okay?

[larig]

The freedom to practice religion unfettered by the government is one of the founding principles of our republic. The Constitution should not be ignored based on public opinion polls.

A lot of religious people forget about this part of the constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

It works both ways. You do not have to choose to use BC, but don't prevent my access to it.

[Green_Tea]

The freedom to practice religion unfettered by the government is one of the founding principles of our republic. The Constitution should not be ignored based on public opinion polls.

I do not disagree with you at all. The freedom to freely practice religion should be protected at all costs.

But I do not believe that "practicing religion" and a religious organization acting as an employer are one in the same. If they were, Catholic colleges and hospitals could legally discriminate in their hiring and admissions practices, but, to my knowledge, that's not legal.

[MissyAg94]

No one is trying to prevent you from accessing BC. But the government has no business forcing a religious organization to provide for something that they are morally opposed to. This time it's contraception. What will it be next time?

I won't debate this here because it's the BP. Sorry, OP. Like I said, I understand your bad feelings about a political pundit being offensive. Sometimes I restrict my own access to media to prevent myself from being exposed to it.

[larig]

No one is trying to prevent you from accessing BC. But the government has no business forcing a religious organization to provide for something that they are morally opposed to. This time it's contraception. What will it be next time?

I won't debate this here because it's the BP. Sorry, OP. Like I said, I understand your bad feelings about a political pundit being offensive. Sometimes I restrict my own access to media to prevent myself from being exposed to it.

As I pointed out upthread, the argument works both ways, what is next from the religious end...

Let's say your employer were a Scientologist--would you permit him to deny you anti-depression meds? Or perhaps a Jehovah's Witness who might deny you coverage for a blood transfusion? At what point is it NOT okay?

[Green_Tea]

No one is trying to prevent you from accessing BC. But the government has no business forcing a religious organization to provide for something that they are morally opposed to. This time it's contraception. What will it be next time?


Exactly. Maybe next time it will be lithium for depression. Or treatment for lung cancer caused by smoking. Or diabetes caused by obesity. Or a child's asthma caused by exposure to second hand smoke. Or a hysterectomy that would allow a woman to be rid of uterine cancer, but keep her from procreating.

[MissyAg94]

Let's say your employer were a Scientologist--would you permit him to deny you anti-depression meds? Or perhaps a Jehovah's Witness who might deny you coverage for a blood transfusion? At what point is it NOT okay?
I am fine with religious employers refusing to offer things that they are morally opposed to. I don't have to work there or I can pay for it myself.

I'll discuss this via PM if anyone is interested. I don't want to be scolded for violating BP rules.

[niccig]

I can see your point IF Georgetown was subsidizing the heath insurance costs but they aren't. Students pay for their own health insurance that the university negotiates for them. In fact law students (and most grad programs) REQUIRE you to hold health insurance (although not necessarily the policy they suggest). This is not like a typical employer provided plan where they subsidize the policy.

A question...

Employer subsidizes health insurance - but isn't this in place of more wages?

DH is looking at new jobs. At same company, a staff job will be x amount in salary + x benefits and we pay a portion of the premium + I think it's payroll tax. Freelance at same company is more in salary and no benefits and no payroll tax paid for him. We have to cover the benefits and payroll tax ourself.

So, does the employer subsidize health insurance or is it in lieu of wages. So, I've earned those benefits as part of my job. Then they company isn't really paying for my benefits or subsidizing them. It's part of my compensation package - and they would have to pay me more in wages if they didn't pay a portion of the health insurance. I can do whatever I want with the money I get paid, the employer has no control over that. But they can control paid of my non-monetary compensation?

Isn't it like this with COBRA. You have to pay the full premium - which is the part the employer paid and the part you paid.

Just trying to get my head around this.

And yes, OP. Rush is an ass.

[HannaAddict]

Xc

7 cgxz

[trales]

I would pay good money NOT to see sex tapes of Rush after using his subsided, not medically necessary for any condition, but only make your sex life better viagra/ cialis drugs.

The man went way, way overboard. There is no circumstances where his remarks should be okay, no matter what the topic. The world would be a nicer, more peaceful place if all men like him became hermits.

[AnnieW625]

Annie, as you well know, there are many reasons people need BC aside from actual birth control. Endometriosis, etc. many many reasons. I respectfully disagree that a church or employer should have any say in what kind of drugs I can or cannot take--it's between me and my doctor. It is naive for us to assume it's always about sex.

It's a slippery slope. Let's say your employer were a Scientologist--would you permit him to deny you anti-depression meds? Or perhaps a Jehovah's Witness who might deny you coverage for a blood transfusion? At what point is it NOT okay?

You are right it is a slippery slope and besides acne and maybe having it elevate cramps I didn't need it for anything remotely seriously like some people I know have. I got it for birth control so I was lucky. I do still stand by my idea tha I you don't have insurance or can't use a cheapo generic then it is best to budget for it, or seek out he services from Planned Parenthood and see what they offer pill wise. I honestly don't think I could take a job where if I needed medical treatment for it wouldn't be covered or it did not mesh with my values. I think it horrible the way Scientology treats people with ppd. So wrong.

[niccig]

I do still stand by my idea tha I you don't have insurance or can't use a cheapo generic then it is best to budget for it, or seek out he services from Planned Parenthood and see what they offer pill wise. I honestly don't think I could take a job where if I needed medical treatment for it wouldn't be covered or it did not mesh with my values.

Not everyone has the luxury of picking jobs based solely on health insurance options.

I deliberately use "luxury" as for many people, that is what health insurance is.

I think the whole issue of having employers in health insurance is crazy. We had an issue with a claim, and DH had to talk to his HR and tell them what the treatment was etc, so they could try to help work out what went wrong - it was supposed to be covered. What happened to HIPPA? DH's employer doesn't need to know about my pap smears thank you very much.

[AnnieW625]

Not everyone has the luxury of picking jobs based solely on health insurance options.

I deliberately use "luxury" as for many people, that is what health insurance is.

I think the whole issue of having employers in health insurance is crazy. We had an issue with a claim, and DH had to talk to his HR and tell them what the treatment was etc, so they could try to help work out what went wrong - it was supposed to be covered. What happened to HIPPA? DH's employer doesn't need to know about my pap smears thank you very much.

again agree with that. Health insurance is a luxury as is being able to be picky about jobs. If I didn't have a job like I do then maybe I wouldn't think the way do. Kind of a side note but I have a really hard time believing that an organization like Scientology would hire someone who doesn't believe in their religion, just like some Christian organizations won't. I actually think that is one thing that sets the Catholic religion apart is that they always don't hire just Catholics from where I am from. Our Jewish friend was the photographer for the local Catholic newspaper in Sacramento.

[dogmom]

Just as a point of clarity the student in question, who was called a slut by Rush, went to testify about her roommate that lost an ovary because the college wouldn't cover her OC which was used, by implication, to cover her medical condition, hence the lost ovary. It wasn't even about HER choices to have sex. The price tag can be $3000 a year for OC.

[vludmilla]

Just as a point of clarity the student in question, who was called a slut by Rush, went to testify about her roommate that lost an ovary because the college wouldn't cover her OC which was used, by implication, to cover her medical condition, hence the lost ovary. It wasn't even about HER choices to have sex. The price tag can be $3000 a year for OC.

Thank you for posting this. I don't recall reading or hearing about this in the news today.

[larig]

Thank you for posting this. I don't recall reading or hearing about this in the news today.

here is her statement. (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf) it is what she read before giving her testimony. The story about her roommate is central.

the woman she testified about is a lesbian, so it was definitely not to prevent pregnancy.

[dogmom]

here is her statement. (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf) it is what she read before giving her testimony. The story about her roommate is central.

the woman she testified about is a lesbian, so it was definitely not to prevent pregnancy.

Well, no wonder Rush wanted the videos posted. :-P

[dogmom]

Not everyone has the luxury of picking jobs based solely on health insurance options.

I deliberately use "luxury" as for many people, that is what health insurance is.

I think the whole issue of having employers in health insurance is crazy. We had an issue with a claim, and DH had to talk to his HR and tell them what the treatment was etc, so they could try to help work out what went wrong - it was supposed to be covered. What happened to HIPPA? DH's employer doesn't need to know about my pap smears thank you very much.

And clearly, by Rush logic, I am expecting you to post videos of all your sexual partners, because how else would you get an abnormal pap smear? ( i am clearly not actually talking about you, just stupid assumptions.)

I can't help but think this would not get the same traction if people knew this also meant no coverage for various fertility treatments.

[kijip]

I suppose if Rush can call this woman a slut I can call him a piggy attention whore? People who listen to him just give him an audience and perpetuate his brand of hateful verbal diarrhea. I question his and their sanity and morality.

[larig]

If you're interested in who Limbaugh's advertisers are... (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070344/-Rush-Limbaugh-losing-advertisers-keep-up-the-good-work-?via=siderec) info at the link to make calls and tell them his language is unacceptable.

[larig]

And now Bill O'Reilly's piling on too. Disgusting.

[jent]

I can see your point IF Georgetown was subsidizing the heath insurance costs but they aren't.
:yeahthat:

Agreed. Besides being disgusting and morally questionable, Rush's statements were just wrong: "if WE are going to pay for your birth control"-- excuse me, what college pays their students' insurance?

As a physician, I find this whole conversation about whether employers should be required to fund certain aspects of one's healthcare ridiculous. Healthcare coverage should be just that, and it should be up to the physician and patient to decide what is the best choice on any lab test, medication, or treatment. Why on earth should employers be allowed to micromanage care? As stated by a PP, BCPs are not just used for contraception. And an employer should in no way be privy to their employee's (or their dependent's) medical diagnosis, let alone be part of the decision making progress of what treatment to offer. Insanity.

And completely agreed that it is entirely inane that we have a healthcare system tied to employment as well. But that's another soapbox.

[Trigglet]

I made the mistake of reading some of the comments on an article about this story - good grief, it was a depressing tirade of ignorant, hateful bile directed not at Rush Limpd!ck, but at the student.

And the thing that's so striking about this vitriolic douchebag is that he is so STUPID. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag using logic or facts, and he entirely fails to understand that the amount of birth control medication you take does not indicate the amount of sex you are having.

Oh, and yes - truly when is he going to follow through on his promise to go somewhere else? - I really wish all these mean, selfish, stupid bigots would just set up camp on a cruise ship and go sailing around the international waters with all their money and no government to bother them. Good frickin riddance.

[Fairy]

Rush is now and ever shall be ... a scumbag.
And I am grateful to him.
I am going to send him a thank you letter.
Because I think he just assisted in handing President Obama his next term.

This man is morally reprehensible. This is not the first garbage he's spewed. Whomever asked if his Viagra is covered, bravo. Whomever asked why he's still here since he was supposed to move, I wanna know that, too. Why aren't you leaving? Do you need gas money? Where can I send you a check?

I'm a lefty tree-hugging liberal. But I am torn over this Catholic organizations/BC debate. I do not think Catholic organizations acting as employers (or colleges funding insurance) should be required to cover BC. That said, i do not think a Jehovas Witness organization should be allowed to not cover a transfusion. Just thinking this thru out loud, here, the former is not life-threatening, the latter is. Hmm. I dunno. I think the specifics I need to work out in my head. But I can tell you this for sure. To word it so vaguely as to say "morally opposed" is NOT gonna fly. It's not a slippery slope, it's a frakkin' slip-n-slide on the side of a mountain. So, if your religion is anti-gay, you can withhold HIV drugs? Are we going to refuse to pay for abortions for women whose babies have died in utero? Are we going to quesiton ectopic pregnancy termination? What about BC for non-contraceptive reasons? I mean, the list goes on and on. I don't think "moral opposition" works, period.

There's just so much anti-women legislation right now it's sickening. Hey, I know, how about we require that any woman who wants an abortion be required to get a transvaginal u/s? Yeah, let's do that!

Please.

[secchick]

I do not think a Catholic universtity should be forced to offer BC in its plan. But if student plans, which generally do not cover a lot and have a relatively low maximum benefit, become subject to Obamacare rules, they will likely be prohibitively expensive. I would never advocate the denial to anyone of basic life saving measures, but I do not care for the mentality that we have to make everything "free". If they substantially add to the Georgetown policy coverage, and it is not subsidized, then it will just increase the premiums substantially for everyone. That would probaby add the $3K she says BC costs during 3 years of law school to her non-dischargable student loan balance. That is the trade off. I think people should be able to choose how much coverage they want, and whether they want a high deductible or no copays.

[BabyBearsMom]

I would never advocate the denial to anyone of basic life saving measures, but I do not care for the mentality that we have to make everything "free". If they substantially add to the Georgetown policy coverage, and it is not subsidized, then it will just increase the premiums substantially for everyone.


Interesting argument, except that when a woman gets pregnant the prenatal care and birth are about 16 to 20 times the cost of the birth control for one year assuming a birth with no complications. I'm only 33 weeks and looking at what my insurance has paid so far for this birth, I would say that the cost of the last 33 weeks is easily over $10,000. That would certainly increase the premiums for everyone else, no? IMO, paying for birth control actually reduced the medical costs incurred by the health plan, keeping prices lower for the other students. Let's face it, these students are young adults. Many of them are going to have sex whether a religion approves of that or not. If they are in law school, its likely that every penny they have is going towards the school and they would not be able to afford to pay for birth control.

Also, totally agree with Fairy above about the many anti-female laws out and about lately. I'm in one of the states with the transvaginal ultrasound rule on the table. It disgusts me. Before I had DD, I had a miscarriage. We had two opinions and verified that there was no heart beat and that the baby had just not made it. Unfortunately, my body just would not shed the baby and there was so much tissue that my OB said that I needed a D&C or I would risk a severe hemorrhage. My insurance company called me to tell me that they were denying my claim as this was a voluntary abortion. There was nothing voluntary about that! I wanted that baby so badly that I still cry about him/her from time to time even after having a beautiful healthy DD subsequently and another one on the way. If they then insisted that I be prodded and violated further after an already thorough examination, just because some stupid law says I needed to understand what I was having removed, I don't think I could have taken it. I was perfectly aware of what was in there, thank you very much and I don't need to probed by yet another phallic shaped device so some congressmen can make me feel even worse than I already did.

[MamaSnoo]

I wish that he and Ann Coulter would go start their own colony on another planet and just go away.

Ummmm......yes.....but then they would mate, and we would all be much worse off if they did not have access to BC. ;)


Seriously, regardless of where you fall in the discussion about religious freedom and access to women's health services, his comments are disgusting and unacceptable.

Personally, I can see where the RCC is coming from, but my opinion is that they have put themselves in a tight spot historically because healthcare and women's health and insurance are fundamentally public policy issues and public health issues, not religious ones IMO. I makes sense to me to regulate the insurance coverage to some extent, and that regulation should follow sound public health mandates (like requiring coverage for preventative services shown to improve health outcomes and BC, IMO). Unfortunately, the church has interjected itself into the business of insurance and healthcare.

[vludmilla]

And the thing that's so striking about this vitriolic douchebag is that he is so STUPID. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag using logic or facts, and he entirely fails to understand that the amount of birth control medication you take does not indicate the amount of sex you are having.



I actually don't think he is stupid. I think he is cynical and thinks that his audience is stupid and will follow his inflammatory, illogical arguments and believe them. He has been tremendously successful financially and in terms of having a large following so he seems to be correct that his audience is pretty intellectually dull.

[liamsmom]

Just as a point of clarity the student in question, who was called a slut by Rush, went to testify about her roommate that lost an ovary because the college wouldn't cover her OC which was used, by implication, to cover her medical condition, hence the lost ovary. It wasn't even about HER choices to have sex. The price tag can be $3000 a year for OC.



And the thing that's so striking about this vitriolic douchebag is that he is so STUPID. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag using logic or facts, and he entirely fails to understand that the amount of birth control medication you take does not indicate the amount of sex you are having.


:yeahthat: He wasn't even correct with his hot air blowing. He insinuated Sandra Fluke was having "so much sex" that she couldn't afford birth control. Um, no "Rush." BCP cost the same amount whether you're a virgin or a prostitute. You just take one pill a day, regardless of your sexual activity.




Personally, I can see where the RCC is coming from, but my opinion is that they have put themselves in a tight spot historically because healthcare and women's health and insurance are fundamentally public policy issues and public health issues, not religious ones IMO. I makes sense to me to regulate the insurance coverage to some extent, and that regulation should follow sound public health mandates (like requiring coverage for preventative services shown to improve health outcomes and BC, IMO). Unfortunately, the church has interjected itself into the business of insurance and healthcare.

No one forced the RCC to create universities and hospitals in a country with a secular government. I don't have a lot of sympathy. I don't understand why this is even a problem here. Birth control and even abortion is free and legal in several (not all) European countries with huge Catholic populations--including Italy!

[larig]

Here's something maybe the smart ladies of the BBB can explain to me...

let's say I work for a catholic institution...they pay me $$. I take their former money, now mine and spend it to have an abortion...did they pay for my abortion?

okay, let's say that I work for a catholic institution...they pay me $$. I take their homer money, now mine and give it to planned parenthood...did they pay for someone else's birth control?

At what point is it my money and not theirs? You can just keep extending this back and back and back. If you pay your taxes to the government it is NOT your money anymore. Why is it that one can argue they don't want tax dollars to pay for abortion, but a Quaker can't say they don't want their tax dollars to go to war? There are no proposed amendments to allow someone to opt out of paying for war. It just seems like there is a group that wants it all their way, but refuses to compromise. War is fine. Capital punishment is fine. Birth control, not so much.

[ellies mom]

Here's something maybe the smart ladies of the BBB can explain to me...

let's say I work for a catholic institution...they pay me $$. I take their former money, now mine and spend it to have an abortion...did they pay for my abortion?

okay, let's say that I work for a catholic institution...they pay me $$. I take their homer money, now mine and give it to planned parenthood...did they pay for someone else's birth control?

At what point is it my money and not theirs? You can just keep extending this back and back and back. If you pay your taxes to the government it is NOT your money anymore. Why is it that one can argue they don't want tax dollars to pay for abortion, but a Quaker can't say they don't want their tax dollars to go to war? There are no proposed amendments to allow someone to opt out of paying for war. It just seems like there is a group that wants it all their way, but refuses to compromise. War is fine. Capital punishment is fine. Birth control, not so much.

Along that line, someone (niccag?) mentioned earlier that insurance is a benefit, it is part of the employee's compensation package, in lieu of salary. So by denying coverage of birth control that is in essence controlling how I use my compensation. Where does that stop? Should they be able to control what I spend my salary on also?

In addition, from another article I read, the faculty and staff of Georgetown have BC covered on their insurance but the students do not.

Not becoming pregnant can be a matter of life and death. Medical decisions should be between the patient and doctor. I shouldn't have to prove that my use of birth control is an "approved" one according to my employer.

I agree that tying health insurance to employment is a bad idea. This is a good example of why I'd like to see a single payer system of some sort.

[secchick]

Interesting argument, except that when a woman gets pregnant the prenatal care and birth are about 16 to 20 times the cost of the birth control for one year assuming a birth with no complications. I'm only 33 weeks and looking at what my insurance has paid so far for this birth, I would say that the cost of the last 33 weeks is easily over $10,000. That would certainly increase the premiums for everyone else, no? IMO, paying for birth control actually reduced the medical costs incurred by the health plan, keeping prices lower for the other students. Let's face it, these students are young adults. Many of them are going to have sex whether a religion approves of that or not. If they are in law school, its likely that every penny they have is going towards the school and they would not be able to afford to pay for birth control.

Also, totally agree with Fairy above about the many anti-female laws out and about lately. I'm in one of the states with the transvaginal ultrasound rule on the table. It disgusts me. Before I had DD, I had a miscarriage. We had two opinions and verified that there was no heart beat and that the baby had just not made it. Unfortunately, my body just would not shed the baby and there was so much tissue that my OB said that I needed a D&C or I would risk a severe hemorrhage. My insurance company called me to tell me that they were denying my claim as this was a voluntary abortion. There was nothing voluntary about that! I wanted that baby so badly that I still cry about him/her from time to time even after having a beautiful healthy DD subsequently and another one on the way. If they then insisted that I be prodded and violated further after an already thorough examination, just because some stupid law says I needed to understand what I was having removed, I don't think I could have taken it. I was perfectly aware of what was in there, thank you very much and I don't need to probed by yet another phallic shaped device so some congressmen can make me feel even worse than I already did.


But an analysis of claims would likely show that there are not a ton of pregnancies and births in this group, and that they presently pay BC oop or use something cheaper. Covering BC, and and compliance with other coverage requiments under the Affordable Care Act (like no lifetime max, etc) would likely increase the cost of student plans.

As to Larig's point, many of these institutions (as well as my own employer) are self insured. While an insurance company administers the plan, the employer pays the actual medical costs, and it is not really insurance in the traditional sense, which was a problem with the Obama accomodation, as these entities still had to pay for the BC.

Once money is yours, it is yours. No one is proposing to limit access to BC for anyone. Go to your doc, get a prescription and go to the pharmacy. Is that really so hard? A company offers the benefits it wants to. That is the market. DH's employer doesnt offer a Roth 401k, but we deal with it. Is it really such a bizarre thought that one could use their own money to buy something, instead of it being "free"? Or that people be exoected to budget and save for routine medical costs and that health insurance, like car or home owners' insurance should only cover the bigger expenses? When I was a kid, my parents paid ped visits oop and health insurance was insurance, a product designed to keep one from facing catastrophic medical costs. Coverage mandates are what have driven up the costs and usage. There are states that require all policies in the state to cover hair transplants, and other not really medical matters. Student heath policies are usually affordable because the population is generally healthy, and there are limits to coverage.

[niccig]

This all furor by Rush et al is also sexist. Viagra is paid for by employers, and I believe covered by the institutions that won't cover birth control. To argue that BC coverage means you want to be paid to have sex, also extends to viagra. Men ONLY take it for having sex, there's no other reason to get an erection. So, they won't others to pay for them to be able to have sex.

I don't know about anybody else, but between the government (federal and state), insurance companies, DH's employer, Rush, leaders of a religion that I don't follow, and every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street who has an opinion on this, my va-ja-ja is getting awfully crowded. There's no room for me, my Dr or DH - who are the only people that should be concerned about my sex life/reproductive health.

[kijip]

The Catholic Church also finds extreme fertility treatments to be a violation of their religious beliefs. Similarly to the debate with bc, most of their members disagree. Should a Catholic employer's insurance company have the right to disqualify any or ALL expenses arising from IVF or other fertility treatments the church deems unfaithful? Or exclude coverage for fertility drugs? I would reckon that if logically consistent that would include the costs of caring for higher order multiples (from fertility treatments) born early? Does an employer really have the right to know WHAT any specific employee uses their coverage on?

The Catholic Church also has a blanket opposition to the death penalty in ANY case. Should Catholics be exempt from paying the portion of their taxes that go to fund the death penalty? Of course not.

Flip it around. Say a different employer believes in zero population growth. Should they be able to exclude pediatrics and maternity coverage and only cover sterilizations for birth control? Why does religious belief of a church outweigh the personal beliefs of any other employer?

Our health insurance is part of my husband's compensation at work. It is in no way free. I expect it to offer coverage that makes it seem like an enhancement to the compensation package. If it covered little or nothing we needed to actually use, I would be pretty irked.

[anamika]

I made the mistake of reading some of the comments on an article about this story - good grief, it was a depressing tirade of ignorant, hateful bile directed not at Rush Limpd!ck, but at the student.


I am staying way out of this thread but OMG, Rush Limpd!ck made me spew food on my keyboard!!

[larig]

But an analysis of claims would likely show that there are not a ton of pregnancies and births in this group, and that they presently pay BC oop or use something cheaper. Covering BC, and and compliance with other coverage requiments under the Affordable Care Act (like no lifetime max, etc) would likely increase the cost of student plans.

As to Larig's point, many of these institutions (as well as my own employer) are self insured. While an insurance company administers the plan, the employer pays the actual medical costs, and it is not really insurance in the traditional sense, which was a problem with the Obama accomodation, as these entities still had to pay for the BC.

Once money is yours, it is yours. No one is proposing to limit access to BC for anyone. Go to your doc, get a prescription and go to the pharmacy. Is that really so hard? A company offers the benefits it wants to. That is the market. DH's employer doesnt offer a Roth 401k, but we deal with it. Is it really such a bizarre thought that one could use their own money to buy something, instead of it being "free"? Or that people be exoected to budget and save for routine medical costs and that health insurance, like car or home owners' insurance should only cover the bigger expenses? When I was a kid, my parents paid ped visits oop and health insurance was insurance, a product designed to keep one from facing catastrophic medical costs. Coverage mandates are what have driven up the costs and usage. There are states that require all policies in the state to cover hair transplants, and other not really medical matters. Student heath policies are usually affordable because the population is generally healthy, and there are limits to coverage.

I think that the point PPs are making is that it is our benefits package, therefore, if we do the work, the money is no longer theirs, even if the group is self insured. You have to consider at what point the money is mine and no longer the employer's.