Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Forum News > The Fire Hydrant


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-10-2012, 10:15 PM
blue's Avatar
blue blue is offline
Jerk.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: wasilla alaska
Posts: 10,092
Default

Mrs Fluke is an activist who wants BC covered by insurance, but that is only the beginning. Rush globbing onto this is probably better then she could have ever hoped for, with out Rush she would not have gotten anywhere near this amount of publicity.
__________________
I SSH'ed into Mordor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee750il View Post
Sometimes BOTH sides are just full of sh1t.
AKpostal
Blog?
MyDrunkAdmin
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-10-2012, 10:54 PM
Zoom's Avatar
Zoom Zoom is offline
Twin 2.0
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 40,737
Default

Viagra is covered by insurance, why shouldn't BC? Keep the balance, right?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-10-2012, 11:06 PM
blue's Avatar
blue blue is offline
Jerk.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: wasilla alaska
Posts: 10,092
Default

I havent had insurance for 17 years and I dont need viagra. If the viagra is prescribed for its original purpose I dont see a problem, anymore then I dont have a problem with BC being prescribed for a medical purpose. Yeah this is a hypocritical stance but its where Im at.

I have a problem with the .gov forcing a private institution to pay for services it disagrees with.

Doesn't change the issue that Rush was the best thing that happened to Mrs Fluke.
__________________
I SSH'ed into Mordor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee750il View Post
Sometimes BOTH sides are just full of sh1t.
AKpostal
Blog?
MyDrunkAdmin
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-11-2012, 06:59 AM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blue View Post
Doesn't change the issue that Rush was the best thing that happened to Mrs Fluke.
Which does not in anyway excuse his behavior, or what what he said any less stupid or offensive, or his interpretation of what she said any less ignorant or misogynistic.

And yes she's an activist. Despite the BS floating around, she never said otherwise. She introduced herself as the former head of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. And yes, she has written papers that express viewpoints that I don't share, and I don't agree with everything she said before Congress

And, as I have explained several times:

1) I'm not too fond of the government making people pay for services they have a problem with, BUT
A) Those private companies aren't the ones, by and large, really paying for that insurance. The employee is through lower wages (in fact, they are often literally paying a portion of it), the taxpayer is (because of the huge tax deduction). The employer writes the check, but the only reason they do so is that our system is designed that way for reasons that made some sense after WWII and none whatsoever now. (This is not to diminish the problems that whole thing causes for employers either, who are often caught between a rock in a hard place in that they are expected to provide a "perk" of ever increasing cost and are punished, in some cases, if they don't, yet cannot simply further decrease wages to pay for it)
B) Women do not have a choice in their health insurance in any practical sense (they take what their employer purchases, or they pay through the nose for an inferior product).
C) If they buy without insurance, they pay outrageous prices even for generics, prices that are actually high above market price (which is what the insurance companies pay).
D) Therefore, allowing employers to determine what is, or is not covered under the health insurance plan for moral reasons (there is almost NO cost difference) allows the employer, in effect, to determine if its female employee pays a small reasonable co-pay (or if the admin has their way nothing) or whether she pays upwards of $50, and likely far more, for her BC. For lower income women, the result is that their employer can determine whether BC is a minor expense, or whether it is a serious burden and might even be out of reach.
2) So, though I have a problem with the government making employers buy (with the money that would have gone to wages that contributed by employees) insurance that covers something they don't like, I also have a problem with the government though the health system that it has created over the decades (and ,have no illusions, it HAS created it, if not always on purpose) empowering employers to decide for religious reasons, whether their female employes pay a small reasonable price for BC for an outrageous, possible budget busting price . . . (or indeed to decide for religious reasons whether she (or he) receives any service that they for some reason object to).

Which again, doesn't change the fact that Rush's behavior was outrageous (and, as you point out, counterproductive to his cause) or the fact that BC should certainly be covered for medical reasons, and because of how our system is set up, for the reasons that I have repeated in several places, should also be covered for all reasons.

Caveat: I don't agree with the administration on the "no co-pay" thing, which is part of the problem here, because it also excludes allowing women to buy a cheap rider. Assuming that the insurance co-pays are reasonable, I don't see any reason why women shouldn't pay them. I have always had a co-pay, and its never been very high for generic BC (admittedly, I've always had reasonably good insurance, even when I was otherwise dirt poor). I really don't see any reason why it should be free. However, it should be covered. I'll also point out that the "uninsured price" for even generic brands is outrageous . . . but that will lead into another lecture on perverse incentives.

Frankly, the solution that would fix everything: MAKE BC AVAILABLE OVER THE COUNTER. I'm told there is NO medical reason why it isn't, except for a desire by doctors to make sure women have their "well-woman" exams yearly and pressure from the right.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com

Last edited by Lilavati; 03-11-2012 at 07:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-12-2012, 12:02 AM
blue's Avatar
blue blue is offline
Jerk.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: wasilla alaska
Posts: 10,092
Default

Didnt read anything after this, TL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilavati View Post
Which does not in anyway excuse his behavior, or what what he said any less stupid or offensive, or his interpretation of what she said any less ignorant or misogynistic.
Wasnt aware I excused his behavior, or tried to defend him in any way shape or form.

The left is 8 ways of giddy of shutting down the First Amendment Right of someone they wish dead.

This is a win win for liberals, Feminazis, and the Trans-gender community activists that back Mrs Fluke.

Rush is an a$$, and Mrs Fluke is an activist seeking attention. This is a huge win for her.
__________________
I SSH'ed into Mordor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee750il View Post
Sometimes BOTH sides are just full of sh1t.
AKpostal
Blog?
MyDrunkAdmin
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-12-2012, 07:04 AM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default

A victory he gave her. On a silver platter. While managing to tick off a large number of women. Oops.

And for the record, I agree, mostly, with her point about birth control.

I do not agree with the "poor Ms. Fluke" narrative from the left. Yes, his treatment of her was appalling, but she's a thirty year old woman who is clearly handling this with aplomb. She is obviously capable of handling it . . . so I would appreciate it if everyone stopped acting like she was a helpless teenager. She is a (mostly) private citizen, and his conduct is outrageous, but in many ways is just as sexist to assume that because she is "young woman" his comments are somehow especially damaging to her.

I do not agree (or do not know much about, or do not care) with many of the other things she supports, to the extent that they mater in the relevant discussion, which, by and large, they don't. Should insurance cover sex-change operations? Well that's up to the insurance company, but it hardly seems to me to be something that should be federally mandated.

I do not agree with any steps being taken beyond pressure on his advertisers by their customers, which is a voluntary act of individuals, and frankly seems to make an impression on the man. Demanding the FCC take him off the air is outrageous. Prosecuting him under obscure laws is stupid. To the extent Ms. Fluke wishes to sue him for slander, such a suit passes the giggle test, but is unlikely to be successful.

Rush has as much of a right to say those things as I have to be repulsed by them.

Honestly, I'm far less mad at Rush than I am at those who have attempted to defend him, taking at face value the what he said. I assume that he will say nasty, stupid, malicious, ignorant things without knowing the facts. He does it all the time and I stopped being angry about it awhile ago. However, that people, including other pundits, who are theoretically better informed would support his ignorant drivel does tick me off.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site