Question about the Sandra Fluke; Rush Limbaugh bru-ha-ha...

[gregintenn]

I've heard this deal pretty well beaten into the ground in the last week or so. One thing I have missed, and I hope some of you can clear this up for me, is this:

I understand Ms. Fluke is a college student, and she is demanding her health coverage provide free birth control. My question is: Is it common for colleges to provide health insurance to students? I've never heard of this before, but I do admit I'm not a college graduate.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's not common at all for a college to supply health insurance, but it happens anywhere for a price.

Ms Fluke is a political activist, I think 30 years old, instead of the advertized 23, and is a slut, just like

Rush originally said, if in fact she needed the amount of that particular "health care" that she claimed.

I didn't hear the original quote by Rush, but my wife did, and she agreed with Rush, so I'll defer to my

wife on the point of what Rush said. Wife said he shouldn't have apologized, that he was right.

It's part of a bigger political campaign by the Democrats to get the female vote back, since they appear

to be losing that demographic, lately. It won't be the last we hear of this issue, but Rush is already having

fun with this stuff again.

I imagine some of the more profound internet experts on this forum may have a more intellectual opinion

on Rush's abilities and audience up's and downs. Don't know and don't care. I think he's doing just fine.

Something else struck me as odd about this. I remember hearing that her "testimony" was not officially

given, that her "testimony" was staged by Ms Pelosi and her Dem minions outside the chamber. She was

not included on any list of potential guests for the hearing and was refused due to that fact. The blame

probably went to the Republicans because of the media hanging with their buds and doing the heavy

lifting with the excess lies to us little people. Ms Pelosi should be thrown out of the House for her actions,

like so many others.

Bottom line is Ms Fluke has no right to demand anything from anyone. Another political hack looking for

a law degree, I hear, but with her sex machine(sluttery) turned on high, I bet she doesn't pass the bar.

[TripleDigitRide]

Sandra Fluke is a fraud. She is nothing more than your typical feminist.

[Oh Shoot]

....My question is: Is it common for colleges to provide health insurance to students?..

Well, the university itself doesn't, but they get a group rate for students from a carrier. It's not free, if that's what you're getting at.

UT does, just for example, through Aetna, so I guess most offer something similar:

http://studenthealth...u/insurance.php

edit: Something interesting there I didn't know: all international students are required to have health insurance, and they add it to tuition fees.

- OS

Edited March 17, 2012 by OhShoot

[Parrothead]

Birth control is cheaper than government supported children but.....having sex is a choice. If she can't afford a baby, she cant afford to have sex. This isn't a matter of eat or don't. Sex isn't one of the things humans absolutely have to due to survive. I don't want to pay for someones "recreation" just the same has i don't want to pay for your pot.

[Oh Shoot]

dang, double tap, how'd I do that?

Edited March 17, 2012 by OhShoot

[Jonnin]

the campus has medical stuff for free, its part of the tuition. You get some rather basic services, a little more than what a highschool has.... first aid, asprin, they will take your temp & get you help if you need to go to a hospital or something, and so on. Not sure if someone things free BC is part of that or not (it is NOT, normally). It really didnt make a lot of sense.

Rush had a quote from the woman or a video or something where she said she is paid for sex... which is what he based his commentary on. I do not pay a lot of attention to rush so maybe that isnt correct, but you can dig around online and see for yourself what she said to congress if you care enough to read it.

[Oh Shoot]

the campus has medical stuff for free, its part of the tuition. You get some rather basic services, a little more than what a highschool has.... first aid, asprin, they will take your temp & get you help if you need to go to a hospital or something, and so on. Not sure if someone things free BC is part of that or not (it is NOT, normally). ...

Yeah, AFAIK, she says the university itself should provide the free contraception.

- OS

[Parrothead]

Yeah, AFAIK, she says the university itself should provide the free contraception.

- OS

Which is fine with me--if my tax dollars don't support the school......

[Oh Shoot]

Which is fine with me--if my tax dollars don't support the school......

We would probably both be surprised what we support on various campuses across the US with our tax money.

Georgetown is private, and is Catholic supported. Which is why she was brought into the fray by Obama in light of the brouhaha he already stepped in.

But private universities get federal funding also, and I'd wager Georgetown gets a good pop, being where it is.

- OS

Edited March 17, 2012 by OhShoot

[TripleDigitRide]

Although not ideal, I'd rather my tax dollars pay for birth control pills instead of paying to support the children of women who are not using birth control.

Sandra "The Fraud" Fluke keeps throwing around some crazy figures when it comes to the yearly cost of birth control; something like $1000.

My girlfriend gets her birth control from the Kroger pharmacy for about $15 per month, none being paid for with insurance. That's a far cry from $1000 per year. Not only that, birth control pills can be had for as little as FREE from any public health department.

Edited March 17, 2012 by TripleDigitRide

[Parrothead]

Not only that, birth control pills can be had for as little as FREE from any public health department.

Really--you think that sh** is free

I guess the manufactures of these drugs have days where the employees, driver and distributors work for free to provide this "free" product to the health department?

Not to mention the tax man-- he never takes a day off.........

Edited March 17, 2012 by Parrothead

[TripleDigitRide]

Really--you think that sh** is free

I guess the manufactures of these drugs have days where the employees, driver and distributors work for free to provide this "free" product to the health department?

Not to mention the tax man-- he never takes a day off.........

Yes, I'm well aware that very little, if anything, is truly "free". When you go to your local Kroger and they have a product advertised as "Buy One, Get One Free", I think it's pretty safe to say that somewhere, someone is actually paying for the "free" half of that deal.

I was using the word "free", as in she could walk into the Health Department and walk out with birth control, never handing over cash.

[Guest cardcutter]

A few observations

1 what do you call a woman who wants you to pay for her to have sex?

2 Walmart and Target both have been selling the pill for 9.99$ for years. Just how much sex is she having that it cost 3000$ a year as she claimed?

3 on the other hand it might be worth it in the long run if we do pay to keep her from breeding and polluting the gene pool.

4 Rush was right and should have said that he would apologize ..... and then list the numerous people who daily trash conservative women apologize

Edited March 17, 2012 by cardcutter

[1gewehr]

Brilliant tactic by Democrat campaign strategists. They have been doing everything they could to try and keep the political discussion away from either the economy or foreign affairs. Both areas are widely viewed as gross failures by Obama and the Democrats.

In one move, they got Republicans to focus on an issue most Americans aren't worried about, and got Rush Limbaugh to apologize to his audience. Both items will be brought up numerous times over the next seven months!

Another point is that the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments about ObamaCare in a few weeks. The Democrats have already forced the focus to be on what specific limits Congress has in regard to Health care, not whether Congress has ANY right to regulate it!!

As for Miss Fluke herself, she will end up with a career similar to Miss Lewinski; minor Democratic flunky positions with no hope of being taken seriously by most people. In Stalin's words, a "useful idiot".

[kieefer]

Something else to add.

If you saw the ABC debate where this started George Stephanopoulos asked the question out of the blue to Mitt about birth control. He insisited on an answer.

This was the beginning of the setup involving Fluke the activist slut against the Republican party. Some pundits are saying that allowing free BC would be the first step towards paid abortions, after all, it's all about women's health care...wink...nod.

What has gone on behind this diversion is anyones guess.

[kieefer]

BTW, the local State run Public Health Centers have all the free condoms you want and probably some local schools would too including the colleges.

Miss Fluke should just ask around, I never had a problem of finding a condom when I needed one, heck most of the girls had them anyway.

[RobertNashville]

Although not ideal, I'd rather my tax dollars pay for birth control pills instead of paying to support the children of women who are not using birth control.

Sandra "The Fraud" Fluke keeps throwing around some crazy figures when it comes to the yearly cost of birth control; something like $1000.

My girlfriend gets her birth control from the Kroger pharmacy for about $15 per month, none being paid for with insurance. That's a far cry from $1000 per year. Not only that, birth control pills can be had for as little as FREE from any public health department.

The real issue here isn't "who" pays...this woman (and I use the term loosely) want's "somebody" to not just pay for her birth control (while she attends a law school that cost more per year than the average family income in this country) but she also wants the government to ORDER a Catholic university to provide insurance coverage that they find diametrically opposed to their religions views.

If the federal government can get away with ordering that then they can get away with ordering ANYTHING including what you can say...what you can think and to whom you can pry or that you must pray even if you don't want to pray to anyone.

Rush was 100% right on this...and I wish to hell he hadn't apologized.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm not enthusiastic about the gov paying out any kind of benefits, but you can bet yer bottom dollar that the gov (under either D's or R's) is gonna pay for negligent parents to improperly raise unwanted kids. If R's ever get power and turn off the welfare spigot, then R's won't be in power long enough to enjoy it. So they have to do welfare "in the name of common decency". It is the cheapest alternative of a bad situation.

For instance it would be incredibly more expensive to take away all the kids from parents who can't support them and raise the kids in orphanages. Previous long experience with orphanages shows that we wouldn't necessarily get better outcome from the kids, especially if gov orphanages would be run no better than gov schools. Which is about as good as we could ever expect the gov to do anything in that arena.

Just sayin, it would be cheaper to hand out free birth control than pay child support for unwanted kids, and in addition pay to keep a certain percentage of the kids in jail after they grow up, after being raised so "excellently".

Some pundits are saying that allowing free BC would be the first step towards paid abortions, after all, it's all about women's health care...wink...nod.

The thought of abortion grosses me out but there is a lot going on with activists on both sides of the issue.

For instance Ron Paul seems pro-choice though he doesn't like abortion. However, Dr Paul stated that he would support constitutional amendment or legislation that "life begins at conception". Dr Paul is smart and a doctor, but would love to ask him about those implications. Maybe his definition of conception would be "a viably embedded embryo" or whatever. Maybe a few days after egg meets sperm rather than at the very instant? Dunno.

The reason this is important-- Several kinds of birth control interfere with proper embedding of fertilized eggs which would otherwise be viable. Birth control pills and IUD's both interfere with embedding of viable fertilized eggs.

You don't have to look very far to find LOTS of pro-lifers who consider such birth control methods EXACTLY THE SAME as late-term abortion or even post-partum baby killing. Ferinstance, even liberal RINO GW Bush forbade research on single-cell or small-clump-cell excess fertilized eggs because he considered it identical to murdering humans.

If "life begins at conception" gets traction, or the pro-lifers gain significant control, they will outlaw any kind of birth control which interferes with embedding of fertilized eggs. After that, the major remaining legal methods would be whttled down to abstinence, tied-tubes and/or vasectomy, and prophylactics. And lots of pro-lifers even have issues with anything except abstinence and would do their damdest to outlaw anything except abstinence. All the while loudly complaining about welfare paid to support unwanted kids.

So there is potential for crazy excess from both sides.

[R_Bert]

I heard Rush's initial monologue on Fluke (Thursday & Friday of that week), and also the following Monday.

I agree, his assessment was on target. But, when I heard him analyze the hearing testimony, I did not hear him directly call her a sl*t. Rather, he inferred that 1. the costs seemed excessive, the frequency was absurd, and the natural perception by the public would be to regard these the actions of a sl*t. He also inferred that someone demanding contraception at taxpayer expense could be regarded as working for sex, i.e. the actions of a prostitute.

I don't recall exactly how he worded his Friday analysis, but do not seem to recall him pointedly saying "Fluke is a sl*t", but rather the actions and testimony were consistent with the behavior of one. He even wondered aloud "what her parents think" about her necessity for the amount of contraception and her asking the government to pay for it.

He even asked what the "return on investment" for the taxpayer would be.

He apologized over the weekend, and explained his apology on the following Monday. His reason for the apology was not a correction of facts, but that he had responded in a manner that would be normally deployed by his opposition. He "sank to their level" was the way he put it, and apologized for *that* reason.

Me, well, if it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and squishes like one, it is not necessary to taste it in order to be certain. She is a shill.

Anyway, I bet her family is proud.

[Timestepper]

Anyway, I bet her family is proud.

Indeed.

[Guest cardcutter]

"even liberal RINO GW Bush forbade research on single-cell or small-clump-cell excess fertilized eggs because he considered it identical to murdering humans."

I ma not a real big GW fan but this is wrong. He did not forbid any such thing. He stopped federal funding of it. Private sector research was never banned.

Jim

[gregintenn]

Well, the university itself doesn't, but they get a group rate for students from a carrier. It's not free, if that's what you're getting at.

UT does, just for example, through Aetna, so I guess most offer something similar:

http://studenthealth...u/insurance.php

edit: Something interesting there I didn't know: all international students are required to have health insurance, and they add it to tuition fees.

- OS

Thanks, OhShoot. I was not aware of that. All the babbling guys on the radio speak of it as it is common knowledge.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"even liberal RINO GW Bush forbade research on single-cell or small-clump-cell excess fertilized eggs because he considered it identical to murdering humans."

I ma not a real big GW fan but this is wrong. He did not forbid any such thing. He stopped federal funding of it. Private sector research was never banned.

Thanks Jim

You are correct. Sorry, wasn't trying to distort the facts, just explained it wrong.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not enthusiastic about the gov paying out any kind of benefits, but you can bet yer bottom dollar that the gov (under either D's or R's) is gonna pay for negligent parents to improperly raise unwanted kids. If R's ever get power and turn off the welfare spigot, then R's won't be in power long enough to enjoy it. So they have to do welfare "in the name of common decency". It is the cheapest alternative of a bad situation.

For instance it would be incredibly more expensive to take away all the kids from parents who can't support them and raise the kids in orphanages. Previous long experience with orphanages shows that we wouldn't necessarily get better outcome from the kids, especially if gov orphanages would be run no better than gov schools. Which is about as good as we could ever expect the gov to do anything in that arena.

Just sayin, it would be cheaper to hand out free birth control than pay child support for unwanted kids, and in addition pay to keep a certain percentage of the kids in jail after they grow up, after being raised so "excellently".

The thought of abortion grosses me out but there is a lot going on with activists on both sides of the issue.

For instance Ron Paul seems pro-choice though he doesn't like abortion. However, Dr Paul stated that he would support constitutional amendment or legislation that "life begins at conception". Dr Paul is smart and a doctor, but would love to ask him about those implications. Maybe his definition of conception would be "a viably embedded embryo" or whatever. Maybe a few days after egg meets sperm rather than at the very instant? Dunno.

The reason this is important-- Several kinds of birth control interfere with proper embedding of fertilized eggs which would otherwise be viable. Birth control pills and IUD's both interfere with embedding of viable fertilized eggs.

You don't have to look very far to find LOTS of pro-lifers who consider such birth control methods EXACTLY THE SAME as late-term abortion or even post-partum baby killing. Ferinstance, even liberal RINO GW Bush forbade research on single-cell or small-clump-cell excess fertilized eggs because he considered it identical to murdering humans.

If "life begins at conception" gets traction, or the pro-lifers gain significant control, they will outlaw any kind of birth control which interferes with embedding of fertilized eggs. After that, the major remaining legal methods would be whttled down to abstinence, tied-tubes and/or vasectomy, and prophylactics. And lots of pro-lifers even have issues with anything except abstinence and would do their damdest to outlaw anything except abstinence. All the while loudly complaining about welfare paid to support unwanted kids.

So there is potential for crazy excess from both sides.

Hey Lester,

You remember the stink about the "morning after pill"? It still stinks in a lot of circles and

it may not gain traction again if the "Ken doll" gets elected, and it is being pushed by the

third world dictator, currently in the White House.

I'm a little bit cold sounding about the baby making welfare crowd and don't really care

what happens to them or their offsprings if they didn't really care themselves. There's

no amount of money that will fix this problem and there is no amount of moral depravity

that will be tried by some to get at the rest of us to make us pay for something that

society doesn't need, can't afford, won't fix the problem and will further doom the rest of

us because of their already excessive burden on us.

If those won't take advantage of their own brains and abilities to advance themselves to

a level of survival, then I don't care whether they live or die.

It is another form of welfare in the end and my paying for their ru 486, or a condom won't

fix anything. Those people don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain, anyway.

I guess you figured out it wasn't your argument I had a problem with, because with a change

in premise I'd agree.