Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rush Limbaugh: Making sense or making an ass of himself?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Thus we have far more experience of it than you. You might want to pay attention to what we have to say rather than dozing off.
    I would say there are too many differences in scale as well as socio-economic structure between our two countries for the US to use New Zealand as a model. A population of 4.5 million is not exactly enough of a sample size on which to base a health care program for 320 million.

    Now don't disturb me while I sleep.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

    Comment


    • On the 46$/month figure, that doesn't include the recuring Doctor visits, blood tests and other lab work required when someone is placed on contraceptive pills. The 1000$ a year sounds likely to be correct from my experience - I have three younger sisters, I have been married twice and I have two daughters (one is an adult now), so I do understand how much their doctor bills are. A woman's health typically involves their reproductive system more than it does for men. Woman experience reproductive health concerns earlier and longer than the typical male. Look at insurance rates for reproductive aged women versus similarly aged men.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        I would say there are too many differences in scale as well as socio-economic structure between our two countries for the US to use New Zealand as a model. A population of 4.5 million is not exactly enough of a sample size on which to base a health care program for 320 million.
        I agree. With your far greater scale allowing both better competition and economies of scale I can't see why you'd require anything other than the most basic of 'free' health care systems targeted the way we do with a Community Services Card
        Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        Now don't disturb me while I sleep.
        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

        Leibniz

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
          But you have mandated insurance, which means everyone who pays into that pool subsidizes (or potentially subsidizes in the University's case) these young ladies birth control. As you now have mandated insurance, and insurance companies cross insure each other, that means as Crooks article states, everyone in the US pays on average $46 to pay for birth control.
          We have been paying the $46 long before it was "mandated for religious healthcare to pay for it" which is how I took it. Anyway, $46 is a drop in the bucked compared to having to pay healthcare for smokers, fast food and soda junkies and the like. Where is the outcry for that?

          BTW nice catch. Are you number one,two, or three in the picture? Angler's 738-pound Pacific bluefin tuna may be biggest ever caught
          "She says it will be like mounting a sofa," Good lord! who pays for her condoms?
          Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            Ah, so in that case there will be a drop in premiums reflecting the lower costs with less unwanted pregnancies?
            Theoretically yes...

            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            I thought I had covered that with "sexist rhetoric"?
            I thought you were referring to stuff that Rush said. The procreation vs. conjugal sex argument is not mere rhetoric, it is part of the moral policy that Santorum seems to put forward. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act or Blunt Amendment as it is popularly known shows how real this stuff all this moral conscience thing is.
            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              But that still doesn't answer the question I've been asking since this started. I don't care who's paying, if it's the government, insurance, the university or Santa Claus. Why should someone pay for her pills when no one pays for my condoms?
              If you were enrolled in a Health Savings Plan, it would pay for your condoms.

              or a plan that covered OTC medication. Condoms normally are not covered because they are OTC. Birth Control Pills require a prescription. Which means you have to go to a Dr. to get them.
              Last edited by Gun Grape; 06 Mar 12,, 00:28.

              Comment


              • Since we are discussing "El Rushbo", and idiot things he says.

                Here is one that Bigfella will love.

                Back in Oct of last year he said this about The President sending 100 military advisors help to fight the Lords Resistance Army in Africa
                Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians - The Rush Limbaugh Show
                So nothing to worry about here, folks, only gonna be for a few months. Now, up until today, most Americans have never heard of the combat Lord's Resistance Army. And here we are at war with them. Have you ever heard of Lord's Resistance Army, Dawn? How about you, Brian? Snerdley, have you? You never heard of Lord's Resistance Army? Well, proves my contention, most Americans have never heard of it, and here we are at war with them. Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That's what the lingo means, "to help regional forces remove from the battlefield," meaning capture or kill.

                So that's a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and -- (interruption) no, I'm not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians? Wouldn't you say that we are? I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn't just Obama that supported that. The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they've done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place. Now they're criticizing it.

                Lord's Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people." Now, again Lord's Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord's Resistance Army, what they're trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology." Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                  Why is this not obvious - to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to maintain sexual and reproductive health in women. I would rather pay a small amount for this rather than the cost of carrying through or aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
                  Preventing unwanted pregnancy is not a medical issue, and there are far cheaper ways to do so. BC is not necessary to maintain sexual and reproductive health. It's prescribed for those who already have a disorder, and isn't needed by every woman as a treatment.

                  The reason I think this is necessary is because of the cost. From what I read it is not clear that women's BC is a cheap option, unlike condoms which are very cheap.
                  If it's necessary because of the potential cost, if you'd rather pay a smaller amount now, then can I think of a few hundred items that should be paid for as a preventative...

                  Let's start with all protective sports equipment...should that be "free" too? Wouldn't it be better that everyone has protective equipment for every recreational or competitive sport I can think of to deter the potential medical costs of injury? Shouldn't insurance cover that for free too?
                  Last edited by Albany Rifles; 06 Mar 12,, 03:58.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                    Preventing unwanted pregnancy is not a medical issue, and there are far cheaper ways to do so. BC is not necessary to maintain sexual and reproductive health. It's prescribed for those who already have a disorder, and isn't needed by every woman as a treatment.

                    If it's necessary because of the potential cost, if you'd rather pay a smaller amount now, then can I think of a few hundred items that should be paid for as a preventative...

                    Let's start with all protective sports equipment...should that be "free" too? Wouldn't it be better that everyone has protective equipment for every recreational or competitive sport I can think of to deter the potential medical costs of injury? Shouldn't insurance cover that for free too?
                    I have answered your question but you continue to ignore my point about providing for ED. My view, as I have said, is simple : treatment of ED and provisioning for BC both lead to the same thing, a sexually active lifestyle. Agreeing to provide for one without doing the same for the other is hypocrisy.

                    By the way, I was under the impression that Bc drugs are available OTC; they area not. All BC drugs need to be prescribed, else the woman needing them is not getting any. Why this dichotomy? this places women needing BC in a doubly difficult situation, even if they can afford to pay for it.
                    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Antimony
                      I have answered your question but you continue to ignore my point about providing for ED. My view, as I have said, is simple : treatment of ED and provisioning for BC both lead to the same thing, a sexually active lifestyle. Agreeing to provide for one without doing the same for the other is hypocrisy.
                      I haven't ignored your strawman argument, you just choose to ignore the obvious answer. I see I have to quote myself yet again...

                      Originally posted by Wooglin
                      ED is a medical condition, by its very name, a dysfunction that requires treatment. BC is a treatment for what dysfunction? Do you consider having healthy ovaries a dysfunction?
                      That they are both related to sexual functions is irrelevant. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is not a medical disorder. Having ED is.

                      By your warped logic, insurance should provide penis enlargement pills for free because it's related to sex. Certainly you wouldn't object to that, because that would make you a hypocrite, right?

                      And I'll just leave a pre-emptive re-quote so I don't have to do it again later

                      Originally posted by Wooglin
                      That being said, if a certain contraceptive is prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition then I could see why it should be covered.
                      Last edited by Wooglin; 06 Mar 12,, 06:05.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                        I have answered your question but you continue to ignore my point about providing for ED. My view, as I have said, is simple : treatment of ED and provisioning for BC both lead to the same thing, a sexually active lifestyle. Agreeing to provide for one without doing the same for the other is hypocrisy.

                        By the way, I was under the impression that Bc drugs are available OTC; they area not. All BC drugs need to be prescribed, else the woman needing them is not getting any. Why this dichotomy? this places women needing BC in a doubly difficult situation, even if they can afford to pay for it.
                        Because they are heavy duty prescription drugs. They have a number of possible side effects and a doctor needs to examine each patient to ensure they won't be adversely affected.
                        Birth Control Pills Side Effects, Types of Oral Contraceptives, Drug Interactions, Dosing Information and Brands Chart by MedicineNet.com
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                          Since we are discussing "El Rushbo", and idiot things he says.

                          Here is one that Bigfella will love.

                          Back in Oct of last year he said this about The President sending 100 military advisors help to fight the Lords Resistance Army in Africa
                          Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians - The Rush Limbaugh Show
                          Ah Gunny, you know me too well. I actually had fun with this one last year on another website. A few dittohead were parroting this stuff verbatim & I took great pleasure in hammering the truth about the LRA in to their not too bright skulls. It says something profoundly depressing that not only were there some right wing Americans pushing this evil bunch as 'Christian warriors defending democracy', but that someone with the reach of Limbaugh was repeating it as fact and being believed. It not only told me how ignorant some people are, but how pathologiccal their hatred of Obama was. The mere fact that he signed off on these 100 advisors made it a bad idea. It also told me tha tfor some people there was a converse to muslim=terrorist, and it was that Christian=cannot be terrorist.

                          That even one person still listens to this fool says sometning a wee bit sad about the state of the species.
                          Last edited by Bigfella; 06 Mar 12,, 09:32.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • \ was redundant about ED, unmarried male employees recieving viagra coverage, swupport for a group kidnapping and training child soldiers


                            The idea calling a woman a slut for three days is right on any level on public airwaves is pathetic. It pales in comparison to anyone continueing to listen to someone who called a group kidinapping children and training them tobe soldiers by killing each thinking they have any kind of moral superiority to the nuts listening to a mullah supporting al queda
                            Last edited by Roosveltrepub; 06 Mar 12,, 15:02.
                            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                            ~Ronald Reagan

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                              That they are both related to sexual functions is irrelevant. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is not a medical disorder. Having ED is.
                              Not its not, why should I pay so that someone else gets to have sex?

                              Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                              By your warped logic, insurance should provide penis enlargement pills for free because it's related to sex. Certainly you wouldn't object to that, because that would make you a hypocrite, right?
                              An enlarged penis is not a requirement for sex, an actual erection is. That's what I know about "normal" sex.
                              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                Because they are heavy duty prescription drugs. They have a number of possible side effects and a doctor needs to examine each patient to ensure they won't be adversely affected.
                                Birth Control Pills Side Effects, Types of Oral Contraceptives, Drug Interactions, Dosing Information and Brands Chart by MedicineNet.com
                                So for any woman to take any BC pill, there would have to be medical checkups and prescriptions involved, so its not just the cost of the medication but also for a doctor's checkup and possibly tests. I can see how the costs can rack up quickly.

                                Also, being a prescription drug, once cannot rely on easily available fillups if one is going to be out of town, so they may want to stock up, thus having a higher upfront cost. All the more arguments on some sort of coverage.
                                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X