Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, and er, the Math

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 7:55 AM GMT
    At first blush, I confess, I thought it was pretty extreme for a public broadcast but then you look at what Fluke said, and all things considered given his job as a polemic...

    She is quoted as saying "“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception) ... Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school".

    Break it down. It costs over $23,000 for tuition alone. She can't afford contraception?
    http://www.law.georgetown.edu/finaff/studaccts/tuition.html

    But then look at her claim that (a) 40% of female students can't afford it, and (b) it costs $3000 -

    http://nakeddc.com/2012/02/28/i-did-not-have-this-much-sex-is-law-school/

    the idea that they are paying $1000 per year for birth control is a little crazy. Condoms at CVS cost $1, so that means, if you take this cheaper option, you are actually having sex three times a day, which is kind of insane and you’re going to have a lot more medical expenses than just birth control. Like chafing. Also, you need psychological help. If its birth control pills they’re using, well,Planned Parenthood, which has plenty of offices within driving distance of the DC area, seems to think those only cost $15 – $50 per month, which is half Ms. Fluke’s estimate. A fitted diaphragm costs about $60 and can be used all year long, including special occasions. And IUDs and the Depo-Provera shot are half the estimate cost (at about $500 each).


    I wouldn't have called her a slut. I'd call her either an outright liar or completely prone to exaggeration - but I mean if she were being honest about the numbers, is it any wonder why some might suggest she might be a bit friendlier than what might be normal or what society should be asked to pay for?

    Best quote I've seen so far: "When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?" from: http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-does-not-speak-for-me/
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 03, 2012 10:16 AM GMT
    So now You're calling her a Cheap Slut?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 11:02 AM GMT
    I think Rush went to far, but if you're an activist and you take a very public stand on a highly controversial position, you might get slammed.

    Georgetown “Coed” Sandra Fluke Is a 30 Year-Old Women’s Rights Activist

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/stunner-georgetown-coed-sandra-fluke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/

    ... in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

    In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 03, 2012 12:18 PM GMT
    No ..... in whatever words you wanna put it Fat drug addict bastard called her a slut .... And THEN topped that off by saying that he'd pay for as many aspirin as needed to put between the knees of female Georgetown students

    Sorry ... Fa bastard ain't getting outta this one


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 12:33 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidWow.
    So basically you'll defend anything your side does. Anything.


    Nope. There isn't anything. No matter how craven or despicable that riddler won't defend and then socal will defend his saying it.

    It's a little Stepford Wives for my taste.

    In point of fact, birth control pills (not condoms) are used for a variety of healthcare needs that have nothing to do with contraception, which was Fluke's point (e.g. women are being denied healthcare by employers for "moral" reasons they do not share).

    Also, many of the organizations that are refusing to cover contraception, are covering Viagra, even for single men. So it's clear that this is about controlling women's bodies, not religious belief.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:28 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidAt first blush,
    and you cant join even SANTORUM in saying limbaugh was......

    how embarrassing for you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:53 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    JPtheBITCH saidWow.
    So basically you'll defend anything your side does. Anything.


    Nope. There isn't anything. No matter how craven or despicable that riddler won't defend and then socal will defend his saying it.

    It's a little Stepford Wives for my taste.

    In point of fact, birth control pills (not condoms) are used for a variety of healthcare needs that have nothing to do with contraception, which was Fluke's point (e.g. women are being denied healthcare by employers for "moral" reasons they do not share).

    Also, many of the organizations that are refusing to cover contraception, are covering Viagra, even for single men. So it's clear that this is about controlling women's bodies, not religious belief.


    Yeah because you demand others to pay for your life choices at extravagant costs makes it the fault of others who object to footing the bill. Apparently it means these others want to therefore "control you". Is there anyone denying anyone the ability to pay for contraception? Where's the logic in that?

    Your bogus issues are as much amusing as they are repulsive sometimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said

    Your bogus issues are as much amusing as they are repulsive sometimes.
    As are YOURS all the time!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:13 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Your bogus issues are as much amusing as they are repulsive sometimes.
    As are YOURS all the time!


    Yes because US debt, spending are truly bogus. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Your bogus issues are as much amusing as they are repulsive sometimes.
    As are YOURS all the time!


    Yes because US debt, spending are truly bogus. icon_rolleyes.gif
    Go spend some money today at Toronto Eaton Centre.. stimulate your country's economy and leave us to ours.. hmmm?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:27 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Your bogus issues are as much amusing as they are repulsive sometimes.
    As are YOURS all the time!


    Yes because US debt, spending are truly bogus. icon_rolleyes.gif
    Go spend some money today at Toronto Eaton Centre.. stimulate your country's economy and leave us to ours.. hmmm?


    I'm curious if you realize how you acknowledge how weak and idiotic your arguments are by repeatedly asking me not to comment or respond?
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 03, 2012 3:27 PM GMT
    As someone who works in healthcare, here's the simple fact: Contraception IS expensive. Many people CANNOT afford it. When they do get themselves worked into clinics that do provide free or low cost prescriptions, these patients are often times lost to follow up due to various reasons (one of the big ones being the inability to be flexible with clinic schedules due to the complete over crowding of these clinics). Many of the long term treatments require good patient follow up, which, for various Socio-economic reasons, etc...is not always easy (IUDs like Mirena, Depo-Provera, etc).

    People bitch and moan about the high cost of healthcare and having to pay for pre-natal care and hospital care for these lower SES women during their pregnancies and birth of their children and then complain about the cost of welfare etc.... The cost of paying for their contraception is far, far cheaper.

    Also, to assume that just because someone goes to school and pays a shit ton on tuition that they are able to easily afford other things is a fallacious argument. As someone who pays 35k+ a year in tuition, all afforded for by student loans, and as someone with insurance, I can state that, unless the insurance is damn good, healthcare is still out of reach for many people in this particular demographic. It's gotten better under Obama's healthcare plan, but isn't completely fixed. When one has a limit on the amount of loans they can take out, as well as having to pay for exorbitant tuition, books, study materials, room, and board...etc.. Healthcare, unfortunately, does fall to the wayside.

    Also, due to student loans being considered "income," people who take out student loans in this amount are not considered to be in financial need (despite the fact they are taking in no income and accruing debt at a rapid pace) and are unavailable for financial aid provided to those who are jobless.

    Also, I can state, for a fact that, depending on insurance and how much the examination of the doctor costs, certain birth control methods, such as depo provera, can cost upwards of $600-$700 a year, sometimes more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:30 PM GMT
    One can equally say food is expensive, shelter is expensive, and internet and cable are expensive... but whose responsibility is it to pay for it and to what limit? Even you point out how exaggerated her numbers appear to be.

    As for insurance - don't you think that by compelling insurance companies to pay for xyz, they won't pass it on to their clients or do you honestly believe that this will just cut into their margins?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:32 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Your bogus issues are as much amusing as they are repulsive sometimes.
    As are YOURS all the time!


    Yes because US debt, spending are truly bogus. icon_rolleyes.gif
    Go spend some money today at Toronto Eaton Centre.. stimulate your country's economy and leave us to ours.. hmmm?


    I'm curious if you realize how you acknowledge how weak and idiotic your arguments are by repeatedly asking me not to comment or respond?
    I'm curious if you realize how absurd your shit stirring in here is, as you being a Canadian citizen, and having nothing better to do than comment on and criticize a country that you aren't a citizen of, werent born in, and think you know all the answers to, at such a ripe young age. Einstein you aint honey!
    Pompous and arrogant you is!
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 03, 2012 3:42 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidOne can equally say food is expensive, shelter is expensive, and internet and cable are expensive... but whose responsibility is it to pay for it and to what limit? Even you point out how exaggerated her numbers appear to be.

    As for insurance - don't you think that by compelling insurance companies to pay for xyz, they won't pass it on to their clients or do you honestly believe that this will just cut into their margins?


    The simple fact of the matter is this: Women who have unwanted children due to lack of contraception is on the rise. This is why we are tying more and more tubes during c-section. Unfortunately, the less educated population are not always privy into how to get themselves into the system - it can be rough. They are also less compliant with medical administration - one of the cheapest pills one can take out there has to be taken at the same time every day without 1 missed dose in order for it to be effective. I can honestly say that even I would find that difficult. The cost of contraception for a woman is far more economically feasible than paying for her pre-natal care, delivery, medical complications of the pregnancy, and the subsequent welfare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:44 PM GMT

    Riddler, what's going to cost the company more? The pills or the revolving door of absences due to repeated pregnancies? There are married women that shouldn't have to be baby factories.

    So, should business be allowed to discriminate against women who get preggers? Why hire someone who's going to cost you in health benefits?

    Pregnant again?!? Fired for non-performance or not meeting performance expectations?

    icon_question.gif




  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 03, 2012 3:53 PM GMT
    And, since conservatives are always so concerned about the "bottom line," here's the economic bottom line... For this reason and this reason alone, conservatives should jump on board the contraceptive bandwagon:

    http://womens-health.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2009/129/2
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:03 PM GMT
    Hey, even better. Why should employers healthcare plans cover pregnancies?
    Eh, Riddler?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:13 PM GMT
    1. Discussion here had been framed about the use of the pills for birth control, not other medically necessary purposes, which is a different matter.

    2. The left has framed the discussion about contraception. The right has framed it about the right of an organization to cover or not cover services based on its convictions. The left has obviously been successful in that framing on RJ and much of the media, surprise, surprise.

    3. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans have spoken against contraception.

    4. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans want to make it an election issue, especially when there is so much to talk about concerning other issues. Even Santorum would probably like to pivot away from this, but his past words and possible lack of self-control will prevent that.

    5. Not surprising that my comments above were misinterpreted. I guess if you don't get emotional condemning something, you must support it. Also, as far as sympathy for Fluke goes, if what I quoted is true, then she deliberately went into shark infested waters. Not that she deserves to be attacked by sharks, but she did overtly seek the publicity.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 03, 2012 4:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said1. Discussion here had been framed about the use of the pills for birth control, not other medically necessary purposes, which is a different matter.

    2. The left has framed the discussion about contraception. The right has framed it about the right of an organization to cover or not cover services based on its convictions. The left has obviously been successful in that framing on RJ and much of the media, surprise, surprise.

    3. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans have spoken against contraception.

    4. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans want to make it an election issue, especially when there is so much to talk about concerning other issues. Even Santorum would probably like to pivot away from this, but his past words and possible lack of self-control will prevent that.

    5. Not surprising that my comments above were misinterpreted. I guess if you don't get emotional condemning something, you must support it. Also, as far as sympathy for Fluke goes, if what I quoted is true, then she deliberately went into shark infested waters. Not that she deserves to be attacked by sharks, but she did overtly seek the publicity.


    I take issue with #2: As mentioned in the past, 95%+ of catholics do use some form, or have used at some point, contraception. To claim religious qualms with it is a ploy in over 95% of cases in order to nickle and dime their employees out of coverage. Furthermore, by this religious and moral reasoning, employers could state that they are against blood transfusions, invasive surgeries, etc (as some religions are opposed to these things) and refuse to cover them in order to cut back on costs even further.

    Also, as for the issue being convictions, Rush limbaugh is the one himself who came out against the mandate in terms of having to pay for a woman to be slutty...He didn't bring his religious qualms in against it - he brought in his pocketbook. Therefore, I brought in the argument that his is wrong and showed that contraception saves money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:27 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said1. Discussion here had been framed about the use of the pills for birth control, not other medically necessary purposes, which is a different matter.

    2. The left has framed the discussion about contraception. The right has framed it about the right of an organization to cover or not cover services based on its convictions. The left has obviously been successful in that framing on RJ and much of the media, surprise, surprise.

    3. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans have spoken against contraception.

    4. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans want to make it an election issue, especially when there is so much to talk about concerning other issues. Even Santorum would probably like to pivot away from this, but his past words and possible lack of self-control will prevent that.

    5. Not surprising that my comments above were misinterpreted. I guess if you don't get emotional condemning something, you must support it. Also, as far as sympathy for Fluke goes, if what I quoted is true, then she deliberately went into shark infested waters. Not that she deserves to be attacked by sharks, but she did overtly seek the publicity.


    I take issue with #2: As mentioned in the past, 95%+ of catholics do use some form, or have used at some point, contraception. To claim religious qualms with it is a ploy in over 95% of cases in order to nickle and dime their employees out of coverage. Furthermore, by this religious and moral reasoning, employers could state that they are against blood transfusions, invasive surgeries, etc (as some religions are opposed to these things) and refuse to cover them in order to cut back on costs even further.

    Also, as for the issue being convictions, Rush limbaugh is the one himself who came out against the mandate in terms of having to pay for a woman to be slutty...He didn't bring his religious qualms in against it - he brought in his pocketbook. Therefore, I brought in the argument that his is wrong and showed that contraception saves money.

    Not against contraception, and understand many Catholics use some form. Issue to me is the right of an organization to cover what is consistent with its values. If a company refused to cover blood transfusions, then to a major segment of the population, their compensation would be defective. Another scenario would be for employers to eliminate health insurance from their compensation plan, possibly increase salaries, and let people buy it on the open market, at group rates per other associations.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Mar 03, 2012 4:31 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said1. Discussion here had been framed about the use of the pills for birth control, not other medically necessary purposes, which is a different matter.

    2. The left has framed the discussion about contraception. The right has framed it about the right of an organization to cover or not cover services based on its convictions. The left has obviously been successful in that framing on RJ and much of the media, surprise, surprise.

    3. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans have spoken against contraception.

    4. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans want to make it an election issue, especially when there is so much to talk about concerning other issues. Even Santorum would probably like to pivot away from this, but his past words and possible lack of self-control will prevent that.

    5. Not surprising that my comments above were misinterpreted. I guess if you don't get emotional condemning something, you must support it. Also, as far as sympathy for Fluke goes, if what I quoted is true, then she deliberately went into shark infested waters. Not that she deserves to be attacked by sharks, but she did overtly seek the publicity.


    I take issue with #2: As mentioned in the past, 95%+ of catholics do use some form, or have used at some point, contraception. To claim religious qualms with it is a ploy in over 95% of cases in order to nickle and dime their employees out of coverage. Furthermore, by this religious and moral reasoning, employers could state that they are against blood transfusions, invasive surgeries, etc (as some religions are opposed to these things) and refuse to cover them in order to cut back on costs even further.

    Also, as for the issue being convictions, Rush limbaugh is the one himself who came out against the mandate in terms of having to pay for a woman to be slutty...He didn't bring his religious qualms in against it - he brought in his pocketbook. Therefore, I brought in the argument that his is wrong and showed that contraception saves money.

    Not against contraception, and understand many Catholics use some form. Issue to me is the right of an organization to cover what is consistent with its values. If a company refused to cover blood transfusions, then to a major segment of the population, their compensation would be defective. Another scenario would be for employers to eliminate health insurance from their compensation plan, possibly increase salaries, and let people buy it on the open market, at group rates per other associations.


    Unfortunately, due to the whole "pre-existing" health condition issue that insurance companies love pulling, having insurance through one's employment is the only way that many people can get insurance. Even most large group plans, unless you buy into an overly expensive high risk pool, do not cover those with pre-existing conditions, and health insurance companies are becoming really vicious at denying coverage for anything they can find.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    JPtheBITCH saidWow.
    So basically you'll defend anything your side does. Anything.


    Nope. There isn't anything. No matter how craven or despicable that riddler won't defend and then socal will defend his saying it.

    It's a little Stepford Wives for my taste.

    In point of fact, birth control pills (not condoms) are used for a variety of healthcare needs that have nothing to do with contraception, which was Fluke's point (e.g. women are being denied healthcare by employers for "moral" reasons they do not share).

    Also, many of the organizations that are refusing to cover contraception, are covering Viagra, even for single men. So it's clear that this is about controlling women's bodies, not religious belief.


    Yeah because you demand others to pay for your life choices at extravagant costs makes it the fault of others who object to footing the bill. Apparently it means these others want to therefore "control you". Is there anyone denying anyone the ability to pay for contraception? Where's the logic in that?

    Your bogus issues are as much amusing as they are repulsive sometimes.


    No. The historical accident that made health insurance employer based in the US should not mean that women have no right to the care that they need whether it is for family planning or other gynecological health reasons.

    Your argument that I, or anyone else, is expecting someone to "pay for our lifestyle choices" is specious at best when the same employer-based plans are covering Viagra, AIDS Treatments (long argued to be the result of the lifestyle choices of gay men by the same religious institutions that do not want to cover contraception), and vasectomies.

    Further, have any of the Republican men who oppose women's access to contraception had their health insurance pay for vasectomies? As I've previously pointed out Ann Romney "magically" stopped getting pregnant at the age of 32, so did Mitt get snippped, or are they using another form of birth control and was it covered by their insurance?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:38 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said1. Discussion here had been framed about the use of the pills for birth control, not other medically necessary purposes, which is a different matter.

    2. The left has framed the discussion about contraception. The right has framed it about the right of an organization to cover or not cover services based on its convictions. The left has obviously been successful in that framing on RJ and much of the media, surprise, surprise.

    3. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans have spoken against contraception.

    4. Except for Santorum, I don't think the Republicans want to make it an election issue, especially when there is so much to talk about concerning other issues. Even Santorum would probably like to pivot away from this, but his past words and possible lack of self-control will prevent that.

    5. Not surprising that my comments above were misinterpreted. I guess if you don't get emotional condemning something, you must support it. Also, as far as sympathy for Fluke goes, if what I quoted is true, then she deliberately went into shark infested waters. Not that she deserves to be attacked by sharks, but she did overtly seek the publicity.


    I take issue with #2: As mentioned in the past, 95%+ of catholics do use some form, or have used at some point, contraception. To claim religious qualms with it is a ploy in over 95% of cases in order to nickle and dime their employees out of coverage. Furthermore, by this religious and moral reasoning, employers could state that they are against blood transfusions, invasive surgeries, etc (as some religions are opposed to these things) and refuse to cover them in order to cut back on costs even further.

    Also, as for the issue being convictions, Rush limbaugh is the one himself who came out against the mandate in terms of having to pay for a woman to be slutty...He didn't bring his religious qualms in against it - he brought in his pocketbook. Therefore, I brought in the argument that his is wrong and showed that contraception saves money.

    Not against contraception, and understand many Catholics use some form. Issue to me is the right of an organization to cover what is consistent with its values. If a company refused to cover blood transfusions, then to a major segment of the population, their compensation would be defective. Another scenario would be for employers to eliminate health insurance from their compensation plan, possibly increase salaries, and let people buy it on the open market, at group rates per other associations.


    Unfortunately, due to the whole "pre-existing" health condition issue that insurance companies love pulling, having insurance through one's employment is the only way that many people can get insurance. Even most large group plans, unless you buy into an overly expensive high risk pool, do not cover those with pre-existing conditions, and health insurance companies are becoming really vicious at denying coverage for anything they can find.

    Pre-existing conditions are a whole other issue. For people changing jobs it has been a problem. That is one area I wouldn't mind seeing some type of regulation, not the individual mandate. Specifically, conditions wouldn't be disqualifying if someone had insurance but was moving from another provider. If they decided to avoid insurance and had some catastrophic illness, some other mechanism could be considered, such as a penalty to pay into the pool, retroactively, maybe with a loan to help, or paying for the services, also with a loan. Various blended possibilities might work.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Mar 03, 2012 5:35 PM GMT
    Limbaugh was right. What the hell else is she then??!