Tit-for-tat
Of course, we’ve been discussing the dust-up over Rush Limbaugh and when he took a serious swipe at Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke and the intellectually disingenuous calls for Rush to be pulled from the airways. Well, ROS sends us a link to a letter from Brent Bozell CEO of the conservative Media Research Center to Brian Roberts, Chairman of Comcast which broadcasts Ed Schultz’ show on MSNBC;
Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut.” He claimed that “The Republicans want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.”
Or consider his comments on the former Vice President: “You’re damn right, Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.”
Schultz has compared the Tea Party to Nazi Brown Shirts, asked if the term “whore” applied to Joe Lieberman’s wife, and claimed that conservative broadcasters want Obama shot. And that is but the tip of the iceberg. The list of vile, repugnant venom coming out of Schultz’s mouth is extensive as we outlined in the letter we sent to Mr. Griffin yesterday.
[…]
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your public announcement calling for Ed Schultz’s termination.
Yeah, I’m sure they’ll get right on that. And the media will broadcast it wall-to-wall tonight on the nightly news. Just like they do with Ed Schultz’ constant spewing of REAL hate speech. And VoteVets will issue a letter condemnation with Jane Fonda’s full support. I don’t know about you, but there’s bated breath here.
Category: Politics
“Who needs what should be decided by doctors not bean counters or pols.”
And, who pays for it should be decided by the law, not pols or bean counters or directives from HHS.
How has my argument fallen apart? Yes you can wish for a day when the government stays out of these affairs. But that day isn’t today, so wouldn’t it make sense to decide what will be done NOW? The government DOES provide assistance so it would only seem logical that we would go with the more responsible and less expensive choice. As far as forcing religious employers to violate their religious tenets, that’s a discussion better left alone.
Jacobite, you’re right. Why pay for any of it? If you’re going to have sex and don’t want to get pregnant buy your own contraceptives. If you’re irresponsible enough to get pregnant and unable to support the child, give it up for adoption.
I’m now a registered Libertarian having given up my Republican affiliation about a year and a half ago. Granted, I’m a very conservative Libertarian but after what the Republican controlled state government has been doing here in Az I could no longer, with a clear conscience, support the party anymore.
Said it before, will say it again. At what point did “health insurance” become the panacea for someone else to pay for every little ache and sniffle we encounter as part of our daily lives? Same goes for birth control. In MOST cases, it’s for nothing other than to prevent pregnancy. Only in relatively uncommon circumstances is it prescribed to cover hormonal treatment.
Health INSURANCE should be as automotive, home, and other insurance–to cover CATASTROPHIC events, not everyday minutiae. Imagine if homeowner’s insurance was required to pay for your yard care, plowing your driveway in winter, etc., or if automotive insurance paid for oil and tire changes, tuneups, etc. When we do that, we cover what WE should be doing onto someone else’s shoulders, and then they’ll tell us what we are entitled to, how we should care for ourselves, etc.
Yeah and if you’re irresponsible enough to get pregnant and unable to support the child and decide to get an abortion, those same people who said “you can’t force a Catholic based employer to pay for contraceptives” will be quick to condemn the woman for getting an abortion. It just seems like a vicious cycle in which neither side will be happy.
Jax–and in that case, they also need to STFU. Of course, having it done at PP on the taxpayer dime pretty much negates the “my body, my choice” bullshit too.
If you can afford to stick your dick in or spread your legs, you can afford the consequences. Period.
Interesting point, NHSparky. I had never really thought of it that way. Only problem is that healthcare is so damn expensive.
YY, I live here in AZ as well, and it was about a year ago (a little more than) that I got off the Republican bandwagon.
I personally believe the government has been on a decades long power grab that is spiraling out of control on the backs of a very undisciplined constituency.
Franklin had it exactly right when he said “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
I even have quite a few very ‘conservative’ friends that have fallen into the Federal abyss. No one wants their personal sacred cow sacrificed, and it seems everyone has something they want paid for.
“so wouldn’t it make sense to decide what will be done NOW?”
Yep, and I think the decision should be to fight every occurrence of government intrusion right NOW.
I for one honestly can remove myself from the debate if a woman decides to abort, so long as it’s a decision settled between her and the baby’s father, in a state that has decided to allow it.
I couch it in those terms because I personally disagree with the practice unless it’s on physical health grounds, I personally believe the father has rights which should be recognized and represented, and I don’t believe it’s something that the Constitution gave the Federal Government the right to regulate.
#60 Well said.
As a nation and society, we have become casually vicious with each other. It isn’t necessary.
A term like “slut” brings any viable conversation to a complete halt. It is quite possible to question or explore both personal proclivities and political aims without resorting to cruelty.
And the “Equality” door swings both ways. Jacobite brings up a good point where abortion is concerned. That unborn baby doesn’t belong to just the mother, unless artificial insemination was used for conception. A man has a right to have a say in what happens with an unborn child that he has fathered, just as we have demanded that he be financially responsible for the same.
That’s where the feminazis come in with their “It’s MY body, I can do with it as I wish” line, regardless of the fact that abortion destroys the body of another and stripts its rights.
Frankly, the entire feminist movement pisses me off more as a woman than the entire “slut/whore” argument.
I agree, Anonymous. If you want to follow that “it’s MY body…” business, fine. Then pay for your abortion — or your newborn, whichever you decide — by yourself.
I just have never been able to convince myself that enslaving the male half of the population to pay for the female half’s choices/mistakes is the definition of equality.
It’s the “some people are more equal than others” mentality.
“Use every man after his desert, and who shall ‘scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.” Shakespeare (Hamlet)
@45: You’re absolutely right; it should be decided by the doctor. Not the government and not some little activist tart who went to Georgetown law in order to cause a stink, because she is a “women’s rights” activist and thinks that Georgetown should pay for her contraceptives even though it’s against their religious doctrines and it is not for health needs. How does she want this done? Through government intervention.
What you deem wrong about my stance in your opinion is fine, it doesn’t bother me. I just don’t see it that way. Besides; Planned Murderhood provides all the different contraceptives for a fraction of the cost (and in some cases free), so it still can be had under her claimed cost. How do I know all this? My ex-wife used to use Planned Murderhood and my 2 adult daughters have done research into this before they started college. Funny; but my daughters weren’t offered health insurance through their school and neither was I when I was a college student. Things must be different for students out on the East Coast.
@57-Only problem is that healthcare is so damn expensive.
“If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.” -P.J. O’Rourke
Again, we’re already seeing the results of that from Obamacare. HCRA’s used to reimburse OTC meds. No more. So what are people going to be driven towards? Prescription meds for conditions which otherwise would have been treated equally well by OTC meds for a fraction of the cost. Overall costs go up, being borne by the insurance pool, premiums go up, etc., etc…
NHSparky: I believe HSAs will reimburse OTC meds if your doctor writes you a prescription for same. But only if you have the ‘scrip.
But that’s the whole point–why pay the higher cost for prescription of the same OTC med (Motrin for example) when if you took the same amount of it off the shelf, you’d be SOL?
Uh, NHSparky . . . as I understand it, the prescription can be for exact same OTC meds, and you can still buy them OTC. You just need a prescription to go along with the receipts to get HSA reimbursement. Disclaimer: I don’t currently use a HSA. I may well reevaluate that if my out-of-pocket costs go up, though.
My guess is that this was an attempt to prevent people from padding their reimbursement via bogus claims, or to disallow claims for occasional rather than medically required long-term use of OTC products. Either is plausible – the former is fraud, while the latter is at least arguably consistent with the reason HSAs were set up in the first place (to provide a tax break on out-of-pocket expenses for unusual medical expenses).
I’d suggest asking your healthcare provider if they’ll write you a prescription for any OTC meds you use long-term or regularly the next time you see them. I’m guessing they will if they agree they’re medically necessary once you explain why you need the ‘scrip.
Disclaimer: I don’t currently use a HSA
Okay, wasn’t clear on the OTC prescription rule because I’ve never tried to claim an OTC–but again, doesn’t that seem like a huge fucking waste? I have a cold or allergy or indigestion or any of a hundred other maladies that could be remedied by OTC meds.
Now I have to waste my time (and money) and the doctor’s time to get a script for what should be a no-brainer? Believe me, you have no idea how hard it can be sometimes to get HSA reimbursement for LEGIT stuff like dentists, optometrists, etc. HSA’s weren’t set up for “unusual” medical expenses, hence the cap of $3100/individual and $6250/family. You know how fast a family of four can blow through that? The out-of-pocket limits the IRS has set aren’t a whole lot better.
Most people would just say fuck it, buy the OTC, and screw having to deal with the doctor, the copay, and the paperwork. YMMV.
I won’t argue that it isn’t wasteful or counter-intuitive, NHSparky. But I also agree with you the government has no constitutional obligation to subsidize any individual medical care. And HSAs do exactly that via giving participants a Federal tax break on their contributions to same. So HSAs are an indirect form of government subsidy.
Should the Federal government choose to subsidize something, they can certainly make whatever rules they so desire regarding the use of that subsidy. Provided those rules don’t themselves violate the Constitution, of course.
And hopefully the SCOTUS will also soon rule that the government does not have the authority to mandate the use of such subsidies, either.
Back to the original (or nearly original) point of this post – the shock value of the word slut being used to describe a sexually active female on the public airwaves ended when it came into use on sitcoms aired in prime time. So now, after a couple or three decades of being desentitized to the use of the word I am suppoed to get all upset about it’s use? Nah. It don’t work that way.
Was this “law student” qualified as an expert researcher “testifying” on her professional observations? No. So, in the alternative, she was “testifying” about her first person experiences, with a few anecdotal stories thrown in for good measure? Presumably.
Whatever game was being played apparently has backfired. The vast majority of ordinary folks out here responded to her “testimony” with a big yawn. Those who happened to be listening to Rush probably got a big laugh when he turned it around on the game players.
Meanwhile. the majority of us simply don’t care much any more. We’ve been trained for decades that when we are offended by something said on TV or radio, the correct response is to turn it off. So this feined outrage seems just silly.
But some of us are wondering what the lefties are doing under the table while they have everyone’s attention directed at this non-story.
OWB, you ignorant slut!
Closer to 40 years now. But yeah, pretty much what you said.
Hey! Forgetful, yes…
#52 “As far as forcing religious employers to violate their religious tenets, that’s a discussion better left alone.”
Anon in Jax, you do know how this whole thing with Fluke got started, yes? Dems tried to slip her onto the witness list of Darrell Issa’s hearing about religious employers being forced to pay for contraception. Rules for witnesses were they needed to be submitted some number days prior to the hearing so their creds could be vetted. Dems tried to replacde a vetted witness with Fluke. Issa wouldn’t permit her testimony. So, the Dems staged the presser that lead to Rush calling Fluke a slut. This isn’t about contraception or “women’s health”, it’s about First Amendment freedoms being under attack.
Anon in Jax: why, pray tell, is a potential violation of the First Amendment “a discussion better left alone”? Last time I checked, the First Amendment was a part of the US Constitution.
Seems to me I remember taking an oath that’s pertinent here – something about swearing to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . ” I don’t remember any exemptions to that oath.
Thanks, Miss Ladybug – I skimmed comment 52 earlier and missed that little nugget of nonsense.
#77 and 78
Because the fact that the feds want to violate the First Ammendment doesn’t fit into their narrative that the GOP is waging a war on women.
Some blowhard on the radio who holds no position of authority within the GOP calling a woman who was “testifying” at a Democrat Dog and Pony show a slut apparently does. Not sure how, but that’s what they’re selling.
Okay well let me clarify, I meant to say to it is a discussion I had better leave alone because I already know I don’t agree with you guys. I felt it better to not voice my opinion as I knew it would lead to a sh*t storm.
Anon in Jax: I believe the Grand Ah-Whoom has already happened on this thread. So I doubt that your voicing and defending your opinion will cause much more tumult.
Are you saying, Jax, that you disagree with the 1st Amendment being upheld?
I just feel the need to say something here. Contraceptives are expensive if your insurance does not cover them. My insurance doesn’t cover what I use, so paying out of pocket,it would actually come closer to $3,000 a year than one initially might think. $70 a month, for 12 months a year, for 3 years… about $2,500.00 So the amount that was claimed isn’t that outrageous in some circumstances. That being said, I don’t work for a religious organization, and I am not sure I would ask them cover my payments.
Wasn’t MS Sluts I mean FLUCKE’s er Fluke’s claim $3k for a year? Unless she was calculating a significant rise in the cost of raw rubber prices…OTH…that could be a real sore point ya know.
The issue is that there are a handful of hormonal birth control pills that are used for various health conditions and range from $260-$290 per month, LoSeasonique and Seasonique being the most frequently prescribed. And while they do have some positive effect on women suffering from PMDD and ovarian cysts, they also dramatically increase the risk of clotting (WTF did they think would have by reducing menstruation to once in 3 months????) and stroke.
In summary, I really don’t give a fat rat monkey’s ass what they cost; that isn’t the issue. The issue is some liberal bitch being shady and trying to subjugate a religious institution’s 1st Amendment rights with her nefarious bitchery.
Anon in Jax: the religious aspect is central to this entire discussion. If I worked for a religious employer, I would not expect them to cover medical care that went against the central tenets of their religion. If you want birth control covered, don’t work for an entity who believes it wrong on religious grounds. No one is forced to work for (or go to college at) a religiously affiliated institution…
That we are even discussing the costs of contraceptives at all shows how successful this little ploy by the Democrats has been.
As my favorite radio personality Barry Young says, ‘He who frames the questions wins the debate’.
We really need to quit letting the Left frame the argument.
NHSparky Says: When we do that, we cover what WE should be doing onto someone else’s shoulders, and then they’ll tell us what we are entitled to, how we should care for ourselves, etc. ========== Yep. As zombie stated back in DEC 2009: All Americans Should Not Have to Pay for Some Americans’ Misdeeds, Bad Habits or Stupid Choices An excerpt: A built-in false assumption with the health-care debate is that sickness is always no-fault sickness. It’s never socially acceptable to assign blame for people’s medical problems — especially blame on the patient. But I’m not afraid to confess that I’m a judgmental person. And I’m pretty confident that most Americans who oppose socialized medicine share this same judgment: that some people are partly or entirely to blame for their unwellness. I’m perfectly willing to provide subsidized health care to people who are suffering due to no fault of their own. But in those cases — which, unfortunately, constitute perhaps a majority of all cases — where the unwellness is a consequence of the patient’s own misdeeds, bad habits, or stupid choices, I feel a deep-seated resentment that the rest of us should pick up the tab to fix medical problems that never should have happened in the first place. I’m speaking specifically of medical problems caused by: • Obesity • Cigarette smoking • Alcohol abuse • Reckless behavior • Criminal activity • Unprotected promiscuous sex • Use of illicit drugs • Cultural traditions • Bad diets Now, I really don’t care if you overeat, smoke like a chimney, hump like a bunny or forget to lock the safety mechanism on your pistol as you jam it in your waistband. Fine by me. And as a laissez-faire social-libertarian live-and-let-live kind of person, I would never under normal circumstances condemn anyone for any of the behaviors listed above. That is: Until the bill for your stupidity shows up in my mailbox. Then suddenly, I’m forced to care about what you do, because I’m being forced to pay for the consequences. What I don’t like about the very concept of universal health… Read more »
@#83. “so paying out of pocket,it would actually come closer to $3,000 a year than one initially might think. $70 a month, for 12 months a year, for 3 years… about $2,500.00
Um, Nina,$70/month X 12=$840/year, not $2,500/year. And, PP says the cost of the pills is $15-$50/month. Or did you not mean to say the cost was “closer to $3,000 a year”?
UpNorth: I think Nina meant to say “closer to $3000 over 3 years than one might think”. She seems smart enough to multiply $70 x 12 and realize that the annual total is nowhere near $3000.
But I could be wrong.
Michael in MI: well said, amigo. I had much the same reaction to the famous Mapplethorpe photo exhibits years ago.
Anyone wants to photograph themselves with the handle of a bullwhip jammed up their ass and call it “art”, be my guest. Just don’t ask my tax dollars to subsidize its creation or public display. Find some rich pervert to fund it instead.
@88 – A post chock full of awesomeness!
Nina Says: Contraceptives are expensive if your insurance does not cover them. My insurance doesn’t cover what I use, so paying out of pocket, it would actually come closer to $3,000 a year than one initially might think. $70 a month, for 12 months a year, for 3 years… about $2,500.00. So the amount that was claimed isn’t that outrageous in some circumstances. ========== That’s fine. Though the key point there is “in some circumstances”. And what exactly is the amount defined in “some”? If it’s like the abortion argument where they say that abortion is for “health reasons”, when, in fact, only 10% of abortions are done for “health reasons”, while 90% are done for the mother’s lifestyle being inconvenienced… well, we’re not going to mandate full coverage for 10% of situations. If anything, they can make the mandate only for those “some circumstances” where the contraception is medically necessary to help the woman regulate her cycle. But, since women are now asking the United States taxpayer to subsidize their contraception, as stated by zombie in my previous comment, this puts the American taxpayer in the position to demand information about your lifestyle. Namely: Are these pills really necessary? Are they being used to prevent a health risk (ie to normalize the menstrual cycle) or simply for recreation (ie for “birth control”)? If they are for a health risk, then there’s an argument to be made for insurance coverage. If it’s simply for recreation, then there’s an argument that insurance should not cover a lifestyle choice, especially when there are other 100% free, 100% effective options out there for “birth control” (ie abstinence or rhythm method). Are these the most inexpensive pills that can be purchased? When others are being forced to pay for someone else, they are going to choose the most inexpensive product. That’s what happens when you give up your individual right to take care of yourself and demand others — depend on others to — pay for you. When others are paying, they get to choose what you receive. Think of it like the WIC… Read more »