Thread: Limbaugh Calls a Slut a Slut - This Is Soooo Great

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

As I mentioned, if there are cases where birth control needs to be used as a medication to treat a serious disease, then yes...that birth control in that case should be covered as a medicine.....otherwise, if it is just to be used as a contraceptive, then NO...it should not be covered.

It's not a religious nor a moral issue, it's an issue of logic.

Health insurance is to be used to cover unforseen medical events, and certain planned procedures such as dental cleaning.....it's for like: "damn...I just fell down the stairs and broke my arm."......it's NOT for: "damn, I want to screw that hot guy across the bar...I think I'll go fall into his lap." There is a difference.

I have nothing against contraceptives....they certainly come in handy...but covering the pill as an insurable expense seems to take it to an extreme outside the bounds of which health insurance was originally framed. Where will it end? Can't afford the pill? Ever heard of an IUD?

--

EDIT: I'd have just as much of a problem with Viagra being seen as a medically-necessary, insurable drug.

You don't know very much about health.

Does a depressed person require antidepressants? Should antidepressants be paid for by health care insurance? What if a person is depressed because he has an erectile disorder? Do you treat the symptom or the cause?

Damn stupid logic based on your personal opinion.

I would be totally OK with Limbaugh dying a slow, painful death, but.....

Originally Posted by hitek79

I would be totally OK with Limbaugh dying a slow, painful death, but.....

That "statement" is hypocritical because the government shouldn't make a judgement on any of those items.

Originally Posted by 4matic

You don't know very much about health.

Does a depressed person require antidepressants? Should antidepressants be paid for by health care insurance? What if a person is depressed because he has an erectile disorder? Do you treat the symptom or the cause?

WTF?????? What?????? What if a person is depressed becaused he is bald? Should insurance pay for a hair transplant??? What I'm asking is: 'is there no end?'. Do we have no more personal responsibility anymore, and expect every ailment or malady or maladjustent to be paid for and rectified by some pill?

With that, I take a wide diversion from the social-engineering path of my liberal brethen.
'
Please read Henry David Thoreau's Walden'....and invest yourselves in the idea of living autonomously and with deliberation and DIVEST yourselves of the idea that society owes you everything. If you exist with ideas of societal responsibility instead of personal responsibility, then are you not merely a servant to that society?

--

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

What if a person is depressed becaused he is bald?

--

That's a fair argument.

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

WTF?????? What?????? What if a person is depressed becaused he is bald? Should insurance pay for a hair transplant??? What I'm asking is: 'is there no end?'. Do we have no more personal responsibility anymore, and expect every ailment or malady or maladjustent to be paid for and rectified by some pill?

With that, I take a wide diversion from the social-engineering path of my liberal brethen.
'
Please read Henry David Thoreau's Walden'....and invest yourselves in the idea of living autonomously and with deliberation and DIVEST yourselves of the idea that society owes you everything. If you exist with ideas of societal responsibility instead of personal responsibility, then are you not merely a servant to that society?

--

How about you read Rousseau and The Social Contract and virtually everything that followed it that our society is based on. And all of this self-sufficiency bullshit is just so much self-serving crap until people realize their own personal need for what society provides. It's absurd that we're questioning the wisdom of providing medically necessary services to anyone.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

How about you read Rousseau and The Social Contract and virtually everything that followed it that our society is based on. And all of this self-sufficiency bullshit is just so much self-serving crap until people realize their own personal need for what society provides. It's absurd that we're questioning the wisdom of providing medically necessary services to anyone.

Medically necessary?? Whoa.....we're talking about NON-medically necessary birth control....or at least I was.

As I stated, I don't have a problem with the few instances where a hormonal birth control drug might be a medical necessicity in prevention or treatment of a serious disease....but it is that situation where it's legitimacy as a coverable drug should end.

Call me old-fashioned.....I guess I just have a problem with treating pregnancy as if it were some sickness like the common cold.

--

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

Call me old-fashioned.....I guess I just have a problem with treating pregnancy as if it were some sickness like the common cold.

--

For some, a fetus isn't anything more than an inconvenient, invading virus.

Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin

For some, a fetus isn't anything more than an inconvenient, invading virus.

then they grow up to be libertarians and metastisize

Keep the government out of my rectum, I want to die of preventable prostate and colon. Let's just get rid of all preventative medicine and dentistry so we can pay many fold more in the long run for things we could easily prevent. Let's add vaccines to that as well. A few cases of small pox will soon decrease the entitlement class.

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

This would actually be funny if that were her point, which it's not, and that there were such thing as free health care, which there is not. Even in Europe where all these idiots complain about this think there is free health care, it is not free, it is just paid for in a different manner. There is no free BC pills with health care, they are just paid out of premiums instead of pocket. By doing so they would be pennies a month instead of $15-40 per month.

^^^^^ Three posts chock full of the funneh, there!!! :0 ....even if the third one DOES poke fun at my guy.

--

Originally Posted by The AD

You could consider it preventive care, just like a dental cleaning or a colonoscopy.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by The AD

In fact a logical argument could be made that paying for contraception now will ultimately save money by reducing the number of pregnancies and abortions.

It's not "an argument that could be made", it's a well documented fact. AK Rover's display of retardation in this thread is impressive.

A women speaks articulately and cogently on a topic that affects millions of Americans and she's ridiculed for it. I find that repulsive and I hope most people would feel the same whether they agree with her or not.

Originally Posted by hutash

Keep the government out of my rectum, I want to die of preventable prostate and colon. Let's just get rid of all preventative medicine and dentistry so we can pay many fold more in the long run for things we could easily prevent. Let's add vaccines to that as well. A few cases of small pox will soon decrease the entitlement class.

Hutash, by way of vocation, we are both men of biological science....thus I am wondering just how you equate pregnancy with prostate cancer...beyond that of mere cell division. Are zygotes and later fetuses merely akin to cancerous cell tissue to you? Is pregnancy merely another condition to be medicated away with drugs?

--

When they're both unwanted what is the difference between a zygote and a lesion?

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Exactly.




It's not "an argument that could be made", it's a well documented fact. AK Rover's display of retardation in this thread is impressive.

I find the real retardation here to be the making of pregnancy or perhaps the prevention of such analogous to a colonoscopy.

--

That's because, despite what you said earlier, you are looking at this from a moral perspective and not a logical one.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

How about you read Rousseau and The Social Contract and virtually everything that followed it that our society is based on. And all of this self-sufficiency bullshit is just so much self-serving crap until people realize their own personal need for what society provides. It's absurd that we're questioning the wisdom of providing medically necessary services to anyone.

Please remember, then, that like all contracts, the 'social contract' is a two-way agreement. It is a synergy. If it were merely a one-way contract, it would be more akin to a parasitic relationship (with potential parasitism going either way). Individuals were not meant to be parasitic to society, nor is society meant to be parasitic to individualism...like a true synergistic relationship, both gain strength from each other.

--

Originally Posted by The AD

A slut speaks articulately and cogently on a topic that affects millions of Americans and she's ridiculed for it. I find that repulsive and I hope most people would feel the same whether they agree with her or not.

And articulate slut is still a slut. Seriously have you guys ever heard of Bill Mahr? How 'bout classy Wisconsin native "Sly" Sylvester? Oh yeah - his show has an audience of 6.

Originally Posted by The AD

That's because, despite what you said earlier, you are looking at this from a moral perspective and not a logical one.

I suppose you're right about that. But perhaps that highlights the fact that when dealing with issues pertaining to conception, convenience, birth and abortion....morality can not necessarily be excised from the discussion, nor perhaps should it.

After all, for example, euthanasia and sterilization can logically be considered an efficiently viable solution to an over-population problem, can it not? Indeed, in the 1920s and 1930s, forced sterilization was used fairly commonly by the Federal and various state governments....UNTIL people started objecting to it from a moral standpoint.

And where would we be if no one began morally objecting to slavery or racial segregation?

--

Terrible argument. People are making the choice whether to use contraception or not today. The people who were being sterilized in the '20s were not choosing.

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

Hutash, by way of vocation, we are both men of biological science....thus I am wondering just how you equate pregnancy with prostate cancer...beyond that of mere cell division. Are zygotes and later fetuses merely akin to cancerous cell tissue to you? Is pregnancy merely another condition to be medicated away with drugs?

--

Both are preventable biological conditions, one easily, the other not so easily. Both have cost associated with them which can be lessened with preventative medicine. For many women an unwanted pregnancy can be just as bad as prostate cancer, and just as deadly. In many respects, they are the same, but certainly not all. Pregnancy is a condition to prevent until the individuals involved choose otherwise. Just because we know how it happens doesn't make any less so. Sex is going to happen. Even Catholic priests who have a strong religious drive to remain celibate can't seem to avoid it, so the rest of us sure as hell can't. Should we not cover the treatment of AIDs, syphilis, gonorrhea, because they occur from sex? Why wait until a disease or condition occurs when it can easily be prevented when so desired. Again, should we just stop paying for vaccinations?

I still have not seen a valid response to the point that none of this is free. We are paying for it one way or another. The Catholic hospitals are not paying for it. The employee is paying for it indirectly through their compensation package. Benefits are part of how you get paid to do a job. Some places pay higher wages and the employee pays for services/insurance out of pocket. Others pay many benefits, but the wag is less. Potatoes/potahtoes. Insurance certainly isn't ever free, just paid for in different ways. If you want to argue that health insurance to the poor who do not directly pay for themselves should not include preventative services, that would be one thing, but they are the people most in need, and who raise the cost to everyone else when those services are not provided.

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

And where would we be if no one began morally objecting to slavery or racial segregation?

--

We would be back to a states rights issue that so many on the right long for.