Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Sandra Fluke: I Screw, But You Pay. Government Says So.

Posted 2 years ago on March 3, 2012, 9:24 a.m. EST by Unwashed (-141)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why is Sandra Fluke's sex life for someone else to pay for? Somehow, Sandra having sex is a charity case worthy of government mandate? Why? Is someone stopping her from buying birth control? Who? What else should we be buying Sandra Fluke? Is there a list somewhere?

413 Comments

413 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

See, that is what happens when you don't know what you are talking about. just because that is what Rush said she said, that doesn't mean that she said it.

Now you look like an ignorant fool asking a question like that. She wasn't talking about herself. The point was that a friend had been prescribed the pills for a medical condition. She couldn't afford them and as a result had emergency surgery to remove an ovary. Does any of this sound familiar? FYI 15million women are prescribed these medications for reasons other than birth control and not one of them will ever have sex with you.

Sex wasn't mentioned.

OK next point, I may not need kidney dialysis but if I do, I would like it to be covered.

You aren't being asked to pay, although knowing the facts, I am sure you would generously offer to do so.

Most of the Catholic owned businesses and schools were already providing contraception coverage. Why do you suppose they were doing that? a) It costs less to provide birth benefits to those who want children when accidental pregnancies are reduced (which also reduces abortions, which we all want to reduce.) b) They want to attract women who want a contraception benefit which is virtually all Catholics and non Catholics in the work force. c) They want to show they are not so out of date and out of step with what 99% of the US populations believes and practices and aren't being dictated to by a hand full of men who have never faced an unwanted pregnancy and never will.

Yes, there is a list of wellness or preventative prescriptions to prevent bone loss, excruciating symptoms of menopause, pneumonia and influenza vaccinations and a variety other problems. Why don't you go read up on them while you are taking a break from your Limbaugh fix.

And by the way, he (and I suppose you) doesn't even know how hormonal contraception works. You don't take the pill every time you have sex. You take it daily, whether you have any sex this month. Many women need it to regulate their cycles. He seems to think more sex more pills, less sex fewer pills.

Ignorance is ignorance. Too bad there isn't a pill for that. I would be happy to buy Rush a lifetime supply, of course he would have to retire immediately because he wouldn't be "entertaining" anymore.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Damn I wish you would do some more posts this is good stuff, but I hate to give trolls a bump to say good morning, I really think you said about all there is to say about this crap, helps to have it all laid out, shame it's in such a disgraceful post though.

[-] 4 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If there is a lesson to learn here, I hope it is the OWS movement is very complex and trying to reduce it to a bunch of young unwashed anarchists just isn't reality. There are a lot of people all across all spectrums (except the brain dead) who have serious concerns for the oligarchy running (rigging) the show. Me must have governance that has the interests of the people as its priority, not enriching cronies who already have, as Forrest Gump said, "more money than Davy Crockett." I am after all, just one voice, no better than any other. But so are they.

[-] 1 points by slinkeey (244) 2 years ago

Wrong!

If it was prescribed for a medical condition, the catholic school does not have a problem.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Oh and btw I've been married 30 years and I am well aware of how the birth control pill works and have also PAID FOR IT so keep your insults to yourself.You're typical of the left calling people ignorant.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what do the right call the rubes ?

lazy ?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

You miss the whole point. Providing it of your own free will is one thing. Being forced to by the govt. is an egregious abuse of power and if you can't see that then nothing i can ever say will convince you otherwise.So if this stands what's to stop the govt. from mandating even more things to businesses.let them totally control all aspects of how a business is run because surely they know better than you,I,or any other citizen as to how these things should be done?I honestly don't know how anyone can think that our govt knows how to run anything well. JESUS CHRIST WE'RE $15 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT AS A COUNTRY. I may not be the smartest fellow in the world but in my book that's not a very good track record for running things well.Let the 30 yr old birth control activist plant(who enrolled at the school specifically with this in mind)pay for her own fucking birth control and her imaginary friend too.If an employer chooses to pay for it then fine,if not also fine. Every job I ever took spelled out all the pay and benefits before i accepted the job.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Being forced to do something that doesn't cost you anything and provides a very significant benefit to your employees will get you a lot of sympathy.

Actually most of the Catholic secular businesses already provided the benefit for two reasons, they were able to compete with other employers for both Catholic and non Catholic employees, and they had a more stable workforce that weren't dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

So. whose religious freedom matters? The rank and file Catholics, 99% of whom disagree with the few old fat guys in robes, or the guys in the robes? When have they last dealt with an unwanted pregnancy of their own? So, it doesn't cost them anything, but they want the US government to prevent US citizens from obtaining products that benefit them for free, so they can exert their will. You sure that is the side you want to be on?

Our government runs the Medicare Part D so well that the men get their Viagra so they can cause more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions and more abused children, just like the GOP required it to do when it passed this. But Medicare does it with just 5% overhead above services, less than 1/4 of what we pay private insurers. Oh, and people are happier with the service.

What was the point I missed? Oh, that you aren't the most intelligent fellow in the world? I got that. By the way the $3 trillion blown in Iraq and Afghanistan would provide a pretty nice band aid, right now. Have you got any idea how to get that back?

Here is the fact re the cost of the contraception coverage. "Thomas Carroll, an analyst who covers health insurance companies for Stifel Nicolaus, said that, "in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a material cost to be added to the managed care company or the employer." It was a Reuters article.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

So you believe the govt has the right to control your religion if you have any. Quit trying to change the subject to Viagra dumb ass. So we all should live our lives as you see fit and anyone who disagrees is wrong because God knows you are the know all be all. Do you even realize how fucking stupid and arrogant you sound? I don't force my beliefs on you so who the fuck are you to try to force yours on me? It was all a fucking setup anyway moron. Do some research and you might find that out. She DIDN'T EVEN TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMITTEE dumbass. What you saw was a PRESS CONFERENCE CALLED BY THE DEMS ON THE COMITTEE. She was a 30 yr old birth control activist who enrolled at that school because she KNEW THEIR POLICY and she wanted to cause a fuss for her cause. If she had sex 3 times a day every day 365 days a year and it wasn't with the same guy then she WAS A SLUT.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The Viagra demonstrates your hipocrisy unequivocally. The subject is who gets what healthcare products and who pays. The facts are, that all of the students and employees of these institutions whose purpose is secular, want and need access to these benefits. These people have the same moral right to decide their use of these benefits of this insurance, with the advice of their doctor and only their doctor, , as the employees or students of institutions owned by any other person, or corporation. They have rights to equal treatment under the law. Their peers in other similar institutions owned by the same entity, the Catholic Church, are already, and have been for some time, being offered the same coverage as is being with help from them. Are those institutions less moral institutions? So who is forcing their beliefs on these people? It isn't me.

She didn't mention sex, not her personal sex practices or any one else. What is your source for "she had sex 3 times a day every day 365 days a year" ? It wasn't her. Since you want to use Rush as a source, whether you got it direct from him or a surrogate, it was almost as shameful that he lied about what she said, and you are lying about what she said and you know it.

Regarding the Bishops you want to stand up for. If I was the "head of a movement" and nobody in it agreed with me and most people outside of it don't agree with me except for a few evangelical political flacks, I would keep my mouth shut because those members of the Catholic Church they are jerking around might decide to hire new leaders. Martin Luthor isn't available but I am sure they can find someone who can do what they feel they need and they don't need you working against their cause. They are Americans. Get off their backs. What is a troll who disrupts a public form with false and disingenuous, posts for money, Or is dumb enough to do it for free?WAS A SLUT.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

You idiot,NO ONE is blocking access to those things.They can purchase birth control on their own and if it is prescribed for purposes other than birth control as BC pills often are IT IS COVERED.According to Planned Parenthood on their website BC pills cost $15 to $50 a month.So even at the highest price it's only $600 a year. That is not unaffordable.Maybe you need to check some facts. This was all a Dem campaign stunt anyway you're just too blind to see it.You probably think Fluke testified to the committee when in fact she didn't,she spoke at a press conference the DEMS called. Why do you think the govt has the power to force a religion to do something that is against it's belief? You'd be the first one to scream about posting the 10 commandments in a govt building but it's okay for the govt to impose THE DEMS will upon a religion. See you even think the Catholic church should be run the way you think. Arrogant arsehole.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

How many ways can you be wrong. I saw her testimony live and I knew why she was doing it as an "unofficial" hearing, just as the GOP did during the Dodd-Frank process. And what is the cost of Viagra and Cialis that the GOP insists be covered so their good old boys won't be inconvenienced in filling the sexual appetites. It points out a hypocrisy you won't acknowledge. You sending people to Planed parenthood is a real laugh. And while you are trying to outlaw contraception in every state with a GOP governor. Personhood upon conception. Who is a religion, the huge numbers of members or a few of the members of the management. 98% of the members are saying, "Force me, force me, please force me to have that coverage, Protect my religious beliefs. Protect me from those heretics. Give me the same freedom that other Catholics and nonCatholics have working in other Catholic Hospitals and attending other Catholic schools. My rights are as important as theirs." If you don't believe it, put it to a referendum of Catholics. See what Catholics really want. You might learn something. I think the Catholic Church should not ignore the judgement of their members. As an American citizen I have every right to think that. Don't need your approval. Don't need the Church's so called leaders approval. The Bishop's would appear to the willfully ignorant ones and I imagine their members are concluding they are assholes. Why don't you get your nose out of it. Maybe the Catholics will solve their problem by themselves. They have before. They are called protestants.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

You miss the entire point and I don't think I can say anything to show you.You can most certainly think what you like but who are you to force those beliefs on others?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You would love to force your beliefs on others wouldn't you? Admit it and list several. It will be fun? Explain how you plan to stand at the foot of a families bed with a flashlight and a gun to enforce adherence to your beliefs.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

You really are sick. Again,who are you to force your beliefs on others?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You would love to force your beliefs on others wouldn't you? Admit it and list several. It will be fun? Explain how you plan to stand at the foot of a families bed with a flashlight and a gun to enforce adherence to your beliefs.

And your answer is?

If you want to be a secular business are you FORCED to have a tax ID number? Are you forced to provide workers' compensation insurance? If you are already providing insurance to secular workers in schools and hospitals that you own (as the Catholic Church already is) are they being forced to provide the same benefits for students and workers with EXACTLY the same status as those who have been receiving insurance from the Catholic Church they are providing others. They should stop discriminating against SOME of their students and employees. Shouldn't they?

By the way, why are they hiding behind you? Are they afraid to answer the questions that you refuse to answer? Notice how quiet they have been for the last several days? They are embarrassed, aren't they?

You do oppose contraception for anyone and would impose its prohibition wouldn't you?

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

What the hell are you talking about you sick fuck? You're the arrogant bastard who thinks everyone should live as you see fit. Sad

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Just can't face a fact can you?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Bravvo

[-] 8 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Thanks. I just get frustrated when the media reports over and over what Rush said that she said, and nobody corrects that part. They let his version stand and report his disgusting comments.

Nobody seems to know what she actually said.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago
[-] 4 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Thank you. The person starting the thread prefers to avoid the source and then misrepresent the content. If one is going to post a thread about something that is available in the public domain and fails to provide it, their characterization of the content is suspect. When this is pointed out the response can be, "Ooops sorry. I will get it" or to ignore the heads up and continue to repeat the mischaracterisation ad nauseum.

The latter is intellectual laziness, at best, and intellectual dishonestly more likely or outright fraud and possibly slander.

The burden is on the poster but your generosity is exemplary.

Now that Rush has "sincerely" apologized, I expect his trolls will undergo a conspicuous username change.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, they will disown his (very partial) apology, likely written by his attorneys. They will claim some unfair coercive pressure on his "free" speech "rights", but uphold the fact free distortions and lies he has spewed from his deep well of filth.

Sad, but these right wingers are seriously ill. In promulgating a world view based entirely on self serving, self justifying myth, devoid of fact or evidence, built on disdain and hatred and fear, they have a great deal in common with no one more than Al Quaeda.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah, but they have honed their techniques to a very fine edge. Their discipline is only exceeded by their lack of intellectual curiosity.

And his surrogates will instantly be rendered mute. If only Rush was that easy.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Well, Goebells, whose techniques they borrowed, was indeed a leader of some very disciplined troops. The Big Lie is no not so much a fine edge as it is a blunt instrument.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I wish I could vote this comment up 50 times.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I agree the Big Lie is blunt, but the large number of minions who know what their roles are and how quickly they react to attack the most effective adversary and to defend their spokesperson without regard to morality of the statement, that is what has been polished to a fine edge. They have been doing it so consistently, for so long. That is the discipline I see as polished.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I understand: I was just adding to your point, really, and putting a slightly different perspective on it. I agree with you completely. What the Left needs, akin to what Clinton did during his first candidacy, is a rapid response team. While it wouldn't have any effect on the fanatics, it would at least stop those in the middle (and even some on the Left, astonishingly) from swallowing the bile whole.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I once lived in Morris Plains BTW.

I recall Clintons' truth squads and supposedly Obama is developing the same thing. I am not sure it will be effective. Most of us old moderate Republicans are now called Leftist fanatics. Some are still called "independents" and will listen to facts with documentation so it may work with them but there are more who are blatantly anti fact and anti truth and anti science that form a block of people who say, in essence, "If I believe it is true, if I feel like doubling it that it is still true. And if you say something more outrageous than I said, I will claim that and use it and it becomes my new truth. And if you come back and say it isn't true. it is still true for me."

It is a strange phenomenon and seems like it deserves its own clinical name.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I remember you guys! I didn't agree with you then, but there was some civility and respect at least. I remember particularly Senator Lowell Weicker. He served my home state at the same time as Abe Ribicoff. (And I went to school with two of Ribicoff's nieces.) And although I strongly disagreed with most of Weicker's positions, I always felt he was an honorable man, sincere in his beliefs, and open to evidence-based arguments. I guess he would be called a communist now though, by what constitutes the Republican party today.

It makes me sad.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I think he joined the Concord Coalition with a members of both parties and they tried for fiscal sanity. They tried hard, but it is fair to say that they lost.

"Former Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and the late Paul Tsongas (D-MA) led the effort to help organize these citizens together without regard to party affiliation.Former Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and the late Paul Tsongas (D-MA) led the effort to help organize these citizens together without regard to party affiliation."

The gang is composed of:

  • Bill Bradley, retiring Democratic senator from New Jersey. Bradley had toyed with the idea of running as an independent, but withdrew after a campaign-like tour of California earlier this year.

  • Paul Tsongas, a former Democratic senator from Massachusetts and one-time presidential candidate. Tsongas was among the first Democratic candidates to call for fiscal conservatism and was a founder of the well-respected Concord Coalition in 1992.

  • Lowell Weicker, a former governor of Connecticut. He was elected governor as an independent after Joseph Lieberman took away the U.S. Senate seat to which Weicker had been elected as a Republican.

  • Dick Lamm, a former Democratic governor of Colorado. Lamm is another fiscal conservative and a strong environmentalist.

  • Gary Hart, a former Democratic senator from Colorado. The 1972 McGovern campaign manager also is known for his extramarital frolic aboard the yacht Monkey Business that sank his 1988 presidential campaign. Recently, Hart pulled out of a second senatorial run in Colorado.

  • Tim Penny, a former Democratic representative from Minnesota. Penny is a centrist who left Congress blasting Washington's skewed values.

I know Lamm's brother, Tom. He was an attorney on a case I had some years ago. And Hart's chief of staff used to work for me.

I gradually saw the bus back out and leave me and then I decided we were going to have to live in the real world and needed to make it habitable for the long term. One thing lead to another and I found I was wrong about a number of things.

Some of us grow up, others fossilize.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Wow. Thank you for sharing that. Considering some on this board, that was courageous.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Well, not that courageous. I was also right about some things and a few were rained out. Hart's chief of staff wanted me to be a partner in a lobbying firm. I decided against it after a trail run. He got acquired by the largest lobbying firm in Washington and became CEO.

I did get to see enough to make me throw up and I have a stronger stomach than Santorum. Could have been wealthy. What is the price of a soul? Since I don't have one, it wouldn't have been a fair exchange.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You of all people, show no civility.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I show civility to people, not trolls. And zero to racist misogynist scum like you. Choke to death on your lies.

[-] -3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

There you go again, bully.

You and your Nazi thugs can give up. You won't win. Get out of people's lives. Move to Cuba or Russia, you will be happy there.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No it's not that at all for most. What it is, is an attack. Premeditated to be divisive.

[-] 7 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It is certainly a premeditated attack and it is the straw man fallacy. She said something, he wants a controversy, he fabricates what he wishes she had said so he can attack. He lies about what she said and then demonizes her for it. Then his surrogates come out from under the rocks and repeat the lie and demonization, time after time, after time until soon, no one remembers what she actually said.

It is like Acorn. It isn't what they did it is what Breitbart faked them doing. And even though he was caught at it, people still believe it and it worked and Acorn is no more..

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is also a distraction from other things that are not being addressed. Like the Economic Meltdown Disaster that is not being taken care of.

[-] -1 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

And government trampling of peivate rights is government trampling of private rights.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You do want the government to remove the mandated coverage of Viagra, don't you? Doesn't more sex cause more abortion? More unwanted children? More poor? More need for food stamps? You also want to remove the mandate that people have to be treated in emergency rooms?

And government's trampling of a woman's right to have an abortion. you want to eliminate that too don't you?

Oh, and what was your username last week?

[-] 0 points by Takecareofyourself (-15) 2 years ago

Too much socialism already is a weak argument for more.

Of course we should remove the er mandate. Ers are legally vulnerable and treat too many non-er cases as a result because the people they're seeing couldn'nt care less about the costs. They should have legal cover to turn away non-er cases without fearing the tort-goons or the govt. Then leftists bitch about cost and access. Access to leftists is a fake case over $6 birth control, not bk-ing an er that then has to close.

[-] -1 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

And a government program to force someone else to buy that pill to go along with it, no doubt.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Since the pill saves as much as it costs, do you want to pay the $0.00 net that it doesn't cost, or shall I?

If they don't use it, who pays the $360,000 it takes to raise the child?

[-] -1 points by shamefuldays (-42) 2 years ago

Saves for whom? The fucked up world of liberalism where your neighbors carry more responsibility for you than you carry for you.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

For the insurance companies, of course.

Although this figure may appear expensive to some, when compared with the estimated $10,000.00 expense per normal childbirth, the cost of female contraception is relatively low. In fact, a 1995 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that used cost data from managed care plans provided by large employers in 45 major metropolitan areas to compare the costs and benefits of contraceptive use found that all 15 of the contraceptive methods reviewed were cost-effective when compared with the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy that resulted when methods were not used. The savings ranged from $9,000 to $14,000 per method over a five-year period; using oral contraceptives saved almost $13,000 over a five-year period.

You don't have to pay, no taxpayers pay, the Church doesn't pay and even the insurance company doesn't have to pay because there is a net savings

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"You don't take the pill every time you have sex" This would be referring to the morning after aborting pill. you take it if you dont use regular contraception, had unprotected sex & want to abort a fertilized egg.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

In any case - why should Religious institutions be compelled to provide contraception & the morning after abortion pill? It's an outrage we are even talking about it. If contraception is such a worthy healthcare provision, how about cancer screenings? How about asprin on demand? It's a vote getter that's it. It's also designed to break the church So people look to government instead of God. Wake up!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You are correct to admit that you shouldn't be talking about it. In fact, they aren't required to provide those things but they are required to provide insurance that covers those things for all of their employees and students not just some of them, as they currently do. They are discriminating against some of them and not others. The insurance with that coverage costs them the same as insurance without it so why not provide the same coverqage to all of the students and employees?

There are, in fact, a number of what are called wellness provisions in the insurance. If you are an insurer, it makes sense to cover inoculations, testing to catch developing problems, testing and treatment of things like bone loss, before bones break etc.

Maybe you should read an insurance policy. You seem as ignorant as someone who has never had health insurance. Do you have insurance?

Maybe it is because you look to God when you should be looking to insurance, doctors, nutrition and healthful activity.

Health care isn't about waiting to go to a doctor until it is to late to be cured. It is about keeping yourself well to prevent major health failures. Religious institutions could be explaining this to members who are ignorant to keep them alive, rather than having them die prematurely. If they aren't willing to do that for their members, their motives should be questioned.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

first of all when you say "They" it paints all religious groups with the same broad brush. Some provide some things and some don't. The issue is FORCING them all to do what the government tell them they MUST do. What will the government FORCE YOU to do next? So you are going to be the one to FORCE your ideology on what people should & shouldn't look to concening their health hahaha! Talk about Fascism - No one is Forcing anyone to participate in these religious organizations. They have plenty of other options. This is about breaking the church & promoting Government in it's place.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

This is one group. The Catholics. They voluntarily provide this coverage fpo some employees and some students. They can't use child labor. The have to provide workers comp etc My ideology is the Constitution with its amendments. You would outlaw contraception for everyone. Talk about Fascism? How about subpoenaing the church's records under the RICO laws for conspiracy to cover up multiple cases of rape and child abuse? Oh, and now it is money laundering as well. No one is forcing the church to operate secular businesses but if it does it should be governed by the same laws and regulations as other similar secular businesses. Equal treatment under the law. Tax exempt status for a hospital?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Who said anything about outlawing contraception? There is a big difference between outlawing contraception & forcing people to pay for it on behalf of others. Tell me were in the Constitution it says contraception is a right.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

But you do, don't you? There have been 1100 bills introduced this session in the states attacking women's reproductive rights. Didn't come from anybody I favor. Who is forced to pay for it again? The church? Nooo, provided by the insurance companies. The insurance companies? If it saves them more than it casts are they actually paying for it. Nooo. And where does it say in the Constitution that the church has a right to compete in the market as a secular business against others but with no tax burden?

And where does it say that the church can provide employees and students in some hospitals and schools with contraceptive coverage and not provide it in others? Why is workman's comp insurance OK to mandate but contraception isn't? Do you have a sex hang up?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Insurance companies being forced to provide contraception & morning after abortion pill. Who pay's the premiums? Workman's comp insurance shouldn't be mandated either. There are a lot of things that are FORCED on us that are totally unconstitutional. This is the final nail in the coffin of a free country. If this flys' - there is nothing they cant do to us with this as a precedent.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

But you do, don't you? There have been 1100 bills introduced this session in the states attacking women's reproductive rights. You do support them don't you? So you would force women not to use contraception, wouldn't you?. And you support the GOP passed Medicare Part D which forces insurance companies under Medicare Part D to provide Viagra as a aprt of the package? Don't you?

From a Reuters article, "Thomas Carroll, an analyst who covers health insurance companies for Stifel Nicolaus, said that, "in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a material cost to be added to the managed care company or the employer." "Any services that are mandated are ultimately covered in the premium, either to the specific group or to the system in general," Carroll said. The administration says insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. That view was echoed by Wendell Potter, former top spokesman for insurer Cigna Corp who is now an industry critic. "Providing contraception, even for free, is cost-effective for insurers so I don't think they'll balk," he said, adding it could even save them money in the long run. "It may add a little administrative complexity to what they do, but they can deal with it."

Some those nails in the coffin have your finger prints all over them. And they are precedents no less and no more than this one. You are a big government Fascist in the bedroom.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I support everyone's freedom to choose without being subsidized by the taxpayer. Subsidizing Viagra is a disgrace. Subsidizing abortion is an abomination. Here is your disgrace of a healthcare law: http://freebeacon.com/sebelius-has-no-idea-if-obamacare-adds-to-the-deficit/

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

40% of pregnancies are unwanted. Reducing them consistent with also reducing abortions and child abuse seems to be a worthwhile goal. Got any ideas? Or do you have to keep every nickle? "Somehow" and expecting radical changes in human nature are not likely to produce success.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Ideas - yea - exercise some self control & responsibility before you ask me to pay for you to murder your offspring. How's that for an idea.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"Somehow" and expecting radical changes in human nature are not likely to produce success. Also don't prevent others from solutions that cost you nothing.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

There you go again - relying on what "the administration says" Insurers pass on these added costs to the customer - just like every other cost of any other business. I don't care what anyone "says" they all have agenda's. Just use common sense. As far as improving healthcare - Offering the morning after abortion pill or any other aborting for free doesn't improve the health of the baby now does it.

Regardless - this issue isn't even about contraception - it is about the government being able to FORCE religious institutions or anyone else for that matter - to do what they say -

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There you go again, the insurance companies haven;t complained at all. When is the last time they absorbed a huge cost and didn't say anything?? Never. Really nice of you to fight a battle for them that they don't see as a problem. Workers Compensation? Employers must pay. Terrible? You do want to force people NOT to use contraceptives don't you? You didn't answer.

Baby? I didn't see any baby. The one that you hope every woman has ( every time she has sex) that the father doesn't want, won't support, will abuse or abandon? What do you want to happen in the 40% of pregnancies that are unwanted?

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

The insurance companies aren't absorbing anything - that's why they haven't complained lol! All costs of every business are passed on the the consumer. Take a business 101 class for Christ sake.

Oh - so just because you don't see a baby means it never existed. Wow that's a sad commentary. How far along in a pregnancy do you suppose before you can "see" the baby?

As far as people not using contraception unless someone else pays for it - what a crock - By Fluke's estimation of $3,000 over three years of law school - that comes out to about @2.75 per day. How about forgoing your morning Latte @ Starbuck before you ask me to pay for your contraception? Meanwhile - the average Georgetown Law Grad starts at 160K per year instantly becoming a 1 percenter. So you are supporting the taxpayer subsidizing contraception for the 1% hahaha!

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

deal with the consequences of your own actions. Of course it is costing all taxpayers - are you kidding? the whole Obamanation of a healthcare law is going to tax all of us from here to doomsday. and it wont lower costs a damn bit. In a few years they will be calling for single payer as the solution.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No it isn't,

The administration says insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. That view was echoed by Wendell Potter, former top spokesman for insurer Thomas Carroll, an analyst who covers health insurance companies for Stifel Nicolaus, said that, "in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a material cost to be added to the managed care company or the employer." Cigna Corp who is now an industry critic. "Providing contraception, even for free, is cost-effective for insurers so I don't think they'll balk," he said, adding it could even save them money in the long run. "It may add a little administrative complexity to what they do, but they can deal with it."

So it saves as much or more than it costs, and I'm not kidding. Of course I checked before shooting off my mouth. If you are worried about cutting the cost and improving the outcomes of US health care (which you probably don't) there are at least 4 systems that could reduce it from almost 20% of our GDP to 12% with better health outcomes but then you would have to dream something new to complain about. Probably just aren't that creatine?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The administration says insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. That view was echoed by Wendell Potter, former top spokesman for insurer Cigna Corp who is now an industry critic. "Providing contraception, even for free, is cost-effective for insurers so I don't think they'll balk," he said, adding it could even save them money in the long run. "It may add a little administrative complexity to what they do, but they can deal with it."

Honestly they deserve to be compelled to do a whole lot of nasty things in token punishment for abusing children, and adults who are their members for centuries and continuing to today. There isn't an organization who more deserves to be compelled to do the right thing for their members than the Catholic Church, And they are, hands down, the worst hypocrits in the world.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

The insurance companies aren't absorbing anything - that's why they haven't complained lol! All costs of every business are passed on the the consumer. Take a business 101 class for Christ sake. Oh - so just because you don't see a baby means it never existed. Wow that's a sad commentary. How far along in a pregnancy do you suppose before you can "see" the baby? As far as people not using contraception unless someone else pays for it - what a crock - By Fluke's estimation of $3,000 over three years of law school - that comes out to about @2.75 per day. How about forgoing your morning Latte @ Starbuck before you ask me to pay for your contraception? Meanwhile - the average Georgetown Law Grad starts at 160K per year instantly becoming a 1 percenter. So you are supporting the taxpayer subsidizing contraception for the 1% hahaha!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The insurance company saves when the birth benefit isn't used. They also save when other medical problems are solved by these medicines. "Two new studies in the New England Journal of Medicine conclude that Ella, the “morning-after” pill works as well as Lupron, (a drug used to treat endometriosis, uterine fibroids, or other female hormone-related problems), in treating fibroid-linked uterine bleeding, with less risk of hot flashes.

Further, says the study, Ella may also shrink fibroids, providing a non-surgical alternative.

Two cells is not a baby. You don't pay a nickle either way. The Catholic Church doesn't pay a nickle either way and the insurance company breaks even or saves money and you can't stand it. And 63% of the American people agree with the mandating of the coverage.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

It's not about saving money or not - it's about what government can force people and/or businesses to do. "Two cells is not a baby"? How many cells do make a baby? What else do you accept that the government can force you to do?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha I love the way you start out by saying "what the administration says" hahaha! That tells me you can be sold the Brooklyn bridge. I also love the way they lump in the morning after abortion pill as contraception. As if it is the same as PREVENTING a pregnancy.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Pregnancy is a state in which a woman carries a fertilized egg inside her body. Due to technological advances, pregnancy is increasingly occurring among older women in the United States.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

and?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If it doesn't stick it isn't a pregnancy.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

If you've had sex and conceived, then take the morning after pill you are aborting your child. That's the whole point.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Your whole point, but a large percentage of eggs never attach regardless, and it is the right of a woman to increase those odds. It is your right to ignore science and rant and rave, but not to stand at the foot of her bed with a flashlight and a gun.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

do what you want - just don't ask me to subsidize it which is what the healthcare law is all about. Oh - I noticed how you ignored the abortion pill - how convenient. and you Heroin Fluke will be a 1 percenter as soon as she graduates. Yet she pay for her birth control herself? We all must subsidize her lifestyle?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Since it doesn't cost anything, I think even you could pay for it. But I haven't heard anyone ask you to pay for it. Who did? The "abortion" pill is just the hormonal contraceptive (same formulary) it prevents the egg from sticking, preventing pregnancy. The insurance company save the equivalent f the cost making the net $0.00. Put away your wallet and your nose. The problem never became a problem.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

the morning after pill is not as you stated - it is designed to abort a fertilized egg. That's the whole freaking point! Of course it costs. Were did you get this idea there is such a thing as a free lunch? The whole healthcare bill is designed around redistribution & taxes & penalties. Don't delude yourself.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

In case you haven't already read this:

The Obama Contraception Compromise – Decoder Fri, Feb 10 2012 By Lewis Krauskopf Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:35pm EST Thomas Carroll, an analyst who covers health insurance companies for Stifel Nicolaus, said that, "in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a material cost to be added to the managed care company or the employer."

That view was echoed by Wendell Potter, former top spokesman for insurer Cigna Corp who is now an industry critic. "Providing contraception, even for free, is cost-effective for insurers so I don't think they'll balk," he said, adding it could even save them money in the long run. "It may add a little administrative complexity to what they do, but they can deal with it."

Maybe these industry experts know what they are talking about? Don't delude yourself and try to delude me. Ain't buying it.

Do your research. The morning after pill prevents the fertilization and the attachment of an egg, fertilized or not, from sticking to the wall of the uterus.

"RU-486 which is only administered at abortion clinics. It causes the lining of the uterus to break down so that pregnancy cannot occur."

:"Emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill and Plan B, prevents the egg from becoming fertilized, much like birth control. There are questions about whether it can also stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb — the maker of Plan B acknowledges only that it “may inhibit implantation.”

How small will a government be who hires a guy with a flashlight and a gun to stand in everybody's bedroom to make sure they don't take one of those illegal pills?

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

The cost issue is irrelevant. It's the issue of what government can FORCE on you. Especially a religious org. So the effect will be - they drop coverage altogether like all other businesses will do - pay the penalty & you can go by your insurance on the exchange which is what they want you to do anyway. If you want to include the cost issue - Fluke's assessment comes out to $2.75 per day for 3 yrs of law school. The cost of a Starbucks Latte. What else do you want to have paid for you by others? Show me a link about the morning after pill that says it's not abortion.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It was a cut and paste dummy. Quote marks?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

where are the quote marks on "The administration says" on your post above? really? and I'm the dummy lol! amazing !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Are you sure your name's not Dellmar?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yea - I'm sure

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Why do I have to pay for her birth control?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You don't. I don't. The employer doesn't, The owner of the employer doesn't. And guess what, the insurance company doesn't have a net cost, either. They break even or save money because of savings over 1) unwanted births, 2) other health issues resolved by the contraceptives.

Although this figure may appear expensive to some, when compared with the estimated $10,000.00 expense per normal childbirth, the cost of female contraception is relatively low. In fact, a 1995 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that used cost data from managed care plans provided by large employers in 45 major metropolitan areas to compare the costs and benefits of contraceptive use found that all 15 of the contraceptive methods reviewed were cost-effective when compared with the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy that resulted when methods were not used. The savings ranged from $9,000 to $14,000 per method over a five-year period; using oral contraceptives saved almost $13,000 over a five-year period.

I suppose that disappoints you but that's the way it is. So, now what is your reason to oppose students and employes of secular institutions that happen to be owned by an organization that only sometimes cares about the welfare of their members and other students and employees getting the treatment that they and their doctors have agreed are in their best interests?

It is essentially free, so now where's the beef?

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

No, it is not essentially free. Insurance doesn't work like that. Nothing is free. Nothing.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I have posted the evidence others places on this site. It results from savings from less birth benefits and avoidance of other conditions that are prevented buy birth control pills. One source is a Reuters article, I am sure you can find it.

It is exactly the way insurance works. They calculate their cost for scanario a versus scenario b. If b costs more you raise the rates If less, you lower them. In this case providing the pill and other forms is about a wash given the resulting savings. You can find it. If you can't let me know. I have a copy saved somewhere, but I have a meeting and can't search for it right now.

Hold it, here it is: The administration says insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. That view was echoed by Wendell Potter, former top spokesman for insurer Cigna Corp who is now an industry critic. "Providing contraception, even for free, is cost-effective for insurers so I don't think they'll balk," he said, adding it could even save them money in the long run. "It may add a little administrative complexity to what they do, but they can deal with it."

I know you want it to be that way but it isn't. "Free" is how you feel to talk about things you don't know or understand just to make absurd points.

Better find something else to rant about. Oh and and I will have one of those non apology apologies like Rush likes to make when he gets caught and gets his butt kicked.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

what rubbish. Georgetown will cover the pill for medical conditions. if they can't afford 9 dollars a month w/o insurance at Walgreens , Target, or Planned Parenthood for contraception, maybe they should skip two Starbusk latte's. not surprisingly you are the ignorant one, or just the blind liberal.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Sorry to present you with facts that you can't manage. Georgetown won't cover it. Tax payers won't cover it and you will not overturn this and make the students and employees cover it, when it is FREE.The insurance company will cover it because it is net zero cost to theAlthough this figure may appear expensive to some, when compared with the estimated $10,000.00 expense per normal childbirth, the cost of female contraception is relatively low. In fact, a 1995 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that used cost data from managed care plans provided by large employers in 45 major metropolitan areas to compare the costs and benefits of contraceptive use found that all 15 of the contraceptive methods reviewed were cost-effective when compared with the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy that resulted when methods were not used. The savings ranged from $9,000 to $14,000 per method over a five-year period; using oral contraceptives saved almost $13,000 over a five-year period.

I know you would like it to cost any or all of these parties, but it won't.

And you won't be able to deprive Americans of a better healthcare solution. You won't be able to cause more unwanted pregnancies. You won't be able to cause more abortions and you won't be able to cause more child abuse and child murders. which must frustrate you terribly since you are so pro life that you don't care who you kill or abuse or put in dire economic hardship to wield this awesome and totally disgusting power. You have been exposed for what you are.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

you dumb (cuss word). I said that they will cover it for medical conditions i.e. the doctor will prescribe oral contraception for a condition other than pregnancy avoidence. If Fluke and her flukies need contraception they can go to PP get it for no cost to her there, or go to Target for $9 and month. Nothing is free, if you haven't learned that yet you are dumber than most modern liberals.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The Obama Contraception Compromise – Decoder Fri, Feb 10 2012 By Lewis Krauskopf "Providing free birth control is not expected to hurt profits for the multibillion dollar insurance industry." Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that aim to improve patient health and reduce health care cost growth."Thomas Carroll, an analyst who covers health insurance companies for Stifel Nicolaus, said that, "in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a material cost to be added to the managed care company or the employer."The administration says insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. That view was echoed by Wendell Potter, former top spokesman for insurer Cigna Corp who is now an industry critic. "Providing contraception, even for free, is cost-effective for insurers so I don't think they'll balk," he said, adding it could even save them money in the long run. "It may add a little administrative complexity to what they do, but they can deal with it."

Although this figure may appear expensive to some, when compared with the estimated $10,000.00 expense per normal childbirth, the cost of female contraception is relatively low. In fact, a 1995 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that used cost data from managed care plans provided by large employers in 45 major metropolitan areas to compare the costs and benefits of contraceptive use found that all 15 of the contraceptive methods reviewed were cost-effective when compared with the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy that resulted when methods were not used. The savings ranged from $9,000 to $14,000 per method over a five-year period; using oral contraceptives saved almost $13,000 over a five-year period.

You have been exposed for what you are.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

what has that got to do with religious freedom? you are estupido.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Religious freedom for the members of the Catholic Church and nonmembers who work for hospitals and schools and students of the schools to make their own choices about medical treatments that are covered by THEIR insurance and involves no cost to a their employer, the tax payers or you, and is none of your business. Get your nose out of it.

If Catholics choose not to use contraception, that is their free choice. If they choose to ignore the direction of those who claim to lead them, they are free to do that..Trying to make the US government enforce policies of the "church" is tantamount to establishing an official religion which the Constitution prohibits. Catholics may need a new way to select leaders.

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Worship in the house of the Lord ONLY, attend your local DNC and no others for I am a righteously jealous Lord and will mightily smite all others.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Take a hike.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

the mandate would have the Church pay for the 'free' contraception and the Church doesn't want that. Get it the Church would be paying for it. Even with Obama's concession. Can the government force the Church to do something. Probably somethings but not this one. If it goes to the Supreme Court the Church would win.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Paying zero is such a big imposition. Apparently the government can force the insurance companies to provide something that doesn't cost anything to people who value it greatly in spite of a few who are supposed to have their best interests at heart. When an organization you chose to belong to tries to prevent you from securing something of value, maybe you should abandon the organization. Maybe the shareholders in the church should elect a new board of directors.

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

exactly, maybe Fluke should go to another University.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

After it gets abandoned by the students and the staff, it may be a moot point.

But a new board affects the fewest people.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

i doubt that anyone wants to leave Georgetown U. not because of this. its been this way forever, and no one left before. Fluke is a 30 year old activist , an she has stuck her head in the hornets nest.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Well, since the insurance company will provide the coverage for no additional charge, I suppose she may forgive the owners for attempting to deny her access despite this fact. The hornet's nest was the creation of the management of the owner's, the media and people like you. Management of other facilities of the very same owners was offering the coverage and will continue. That part of an organization is adamant about a principle that they have ignored in other parts of the organization is a hypocrisy that some desperately want to ignore. In the dictionary under hypocrisy, there should be a picture of the Vatican

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

(open sarcasm) can't argue with someone as smart as you(close carcasm)!

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Perhaps, and under stupidity you could put Pelosi and Fluke. again a 30 year old law student can't figure out how to get contraception.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Thanks for agreeing with me. Nice gasp. Maybe a group shot of the three of you? Signed?

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

The ignorance is yours; I haven't listened to Rush's show in quite some time. The idea that her friend couldn't afford birth control pills is nonsense. Of course, she doesn't name the friend, so it's beyond scrutiny.

If you have an ovarian cyst, it's a bad choice to skip your birth control pills. Unless you're so pathetic that you can't afford them, it's about choices.

Fact: Birth control is cheaper than a cell phone. Ask if her "friend" has one. It'll tell you a lot about priorities. Fun things are for her to pay; not fun things are for her neighbor.

Government has no business mandating what's in private insurance just like it's none of their business to mandate the pay, the people you work with, or the length of your commute. If you don't like the pay or the benefits, work somewhere else.

[-] 5 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Please take a bath! It might clear up this fantasy you been living in.

Lying is bad, lying to yourself is worse, but believeing your own lie got America to attack Iraq! You know how well that turned out.

the ALEC marching orders were sent out this morning and they instructed all their minions that the Talking Point for the day is to say that "Fluke is just a Shill for the Democratic Party!"

These people who have come out of the woodwork to defend Rush are Parroting that Party Line in the vain hope that some Unwashed fool will pick it up and spread it around like it's the Gospel.

Try coming up with something that you thought of yourself, instead of Parroting the Big Lie the Koch Brothers instructed you to use!

Rush is wrong on Fluke, and you're a miserable excuse for an American for defending him.

[+] -5 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

You're a miserable American for defending the welfare state and groveling for subsidy, even when it's for something as cheap and available as birth control. You're a miserable American for advocating the dodging of even the smallest modicum of personal responsibility. You're a miserable American for welcome government into the issue. What government subsidizes, it controls. Maybe you bedwetters will give that a little thought the next time you cry about people being out of your bedrooms.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You're a miserable American for having no conscience of any sort, no SOCIAL responsibility, only psychotic Ayn Rand selfishness.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Yes, all hail the dependent class. Virtue rests with those that could pay for things themselves, but choose to demand their neighbors pay for them instead. LOL.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Got news for you, shit-for-brains: there IS no "dependent class". But there ARE people have less. And you couldn't care less is they die.

So go fuck yourself, and have at it with your sister, too. It doesn't matter that she screams no: facts like that shouldn't dissuade you now, since neither facts nor caring about another human being are important to you anyway. Virtue, apparently, is psychotic narcissism.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Gee, libtards sure are easily upset when all you ask if for a legitimate reason why the neighbors are more responsible for buying your birth control than you are.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

you still talking about this tripe ass topic. Here, try this on for size. You pay for Sandra Fluke's safe sex pills because you don't want to be stuck paying for her pregnancy, and subsidizing her children when they are born. I don't really see how you are so confused that you can't see you are better off paying for fuck pills than paying for families below the poverty line. who really is the retard?

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Socialism: The rationale for more socialism.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

WOW! What a comeback! I am so hurt! Let me go down stairs and cut my veins open! The next thing you're gonna say is, "I know you are, but what am I?

Your mind is in a truly miserable place Kid, if you believe all that ALEC garbage! And not for nothing, if you think all that makes ME a miserable American, just call me Mr. Miserable! That is much better than being a Limbaugh Ditto Head!

How can you live in America when you're surrounded by so many Miserable Welfare Loving Americans most of which are Teabaggers like you.

The Government Subsidizes Big Oil, does it control that Fool? The Koch Brothers are continuously Groveling for Multi-Million Dollar Subsidies to build bridges to nowhere, and you aint got no problem with that, but it's ok to attack a young woman over a few dollars for Birth Control! Are you kidding me!

You Teabaggers Whine about personal responsibility and you give Dick Cheany a free pass for outing a CIA Agent! You can forgive Treason in a Republican, but you have a problem with a Democratic Kid from Georgetown. What part of America are you from?

You calll me miserable for bringing Government into the issue, but your side proposed Blunt Rubio, and Forced Vaginal Probes? If that isn't bringing Big Government into an Issue what is? Come on Kid stop trying to defend the indefensible. It aint working!

Did you take that Bath yet Kid??? Your Momma is calling you.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Be a grown up, pay your own bills. You'll feel better about yourself.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'll get right on that Kid, just as soon as you take a Bath, and stop working for a Scumbag!

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You still haven't listened to it or read a transcript have you? The only source of the version of the story that you allude to is Rush's. Your source must be a part of the same sewer system. You carefully avoided admitting that you still haven't listened to what she actually said.

Willful ignorance is the worst kind. Do your homework. Then express opinions about it.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Yes, I did. Answer the questions. The math is still interesting. $3,000 / $1 per condom equals 3,000 fucks.

I know it isn't just about Susan Flake, that her "testimony" was largely left-wing advocacy posing as a personal story.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Condoms? What condoms? Who said condoms? Oh, you said condoms. Why?

[+] -7 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

It's just an example of birth control.

All her "tragic" stories are really about rank helplessness, not about birth control in insurance. If birth control "coverage" is of seminole importance in their lives, what the fuck are they doing going to that school? Are they this stupid? Really, something this important and they STILL can't come up with the change? Did her "cyst" friend choose a cell phone over pills? Of course, they don't say. Further, they don't ID the "friend" for examination.

What would you say about someone like this? She's just lying? She's this dense? She's just a leftist hack activist with exaggerated sob stories? Ding ding ding.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Really?

What exactly did she say?

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Read it yourself. She's a leftwing sales chick for the welfare state, I get that. Birth control is simply too much for someone to bear. Oh my oh my, how could someone ever pay for it themselves. See, the needs are so critical, that people couldn't possible manage to dump their cell phones and buy it themselves, they need their neighbor to buy it for them. Rather than change jobs, change schools or just buy it themselves, they sit down and cry and cry with no idea how oh how they could get it somehow else. She can't handle buying healthcare, but somehow she can attend a law school that costs $30k/year. All such bullshit lies. Yeah, I saw it. Somehow they can buy insurance coverage containing birth control coverage, but can't buy birth control. Somehow the chick with the cyst can't figure out how to buy birth control, even with something serious like a cyst. She also, somehow can buy a healthcare policy, but not birth control. Blah blah blah. Left-wing hack.

Leftists really do seem to believe that making health insurance makes things free.

If her and her friends are this fucking helpless, how the hell are they making it through school?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You see, that's where you're wrong.

I think health insurance should cover everything to do with health.

Everything, not just what WallStreet wants it to cover.

Not just what they think is profitable.

Everything. No exceptions.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

What Wall Street wants it to cover? How are customers? You moonbats have yet to grasp the basic idea that none of this stuff is made free by government mandates. Government continues to load healthcare policies and costs continue to mount. Liberals push the cost higher and then bitch about the cost. Stripped down basic coverage is illegal and it shouldn't be, not for the sake of Wall Street, but for our sake.

You loons can't figure this out, but the more of everyday life we bundle and process through insurance companies because the government says so, the more the insurance companies make. Smarten up.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I got one book for you to read, if you actually can.

"Deadly Spin".

Read and know what tool you really are.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Understand how stupid you are. Government has no business mandating what's in a health plan. When they mandate your birth control, they control your birth control. You leftist dumbasses can't seem to figure this out, but yet you talk about freedom. Government makes nothing free. So, it's somehow a federal case that this school doesn't bundle birth control into the cost of tuition? What the fuck world do your lefists want? Are you so stupid that you think something became free?

Are you so delusional that you believe someone somehow is stopping anyone from getting birth control? If you can attend law school, what kind of a retard believes that you can't find birth control? I think you just answered the last one.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In other words, you really can't read.

That's good to know. I guess it explains your reliance on invectives.

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

In other words, you want government control, think government pushing costs around makes things free, and that a law school student can't find birth control other than via making someone buy it for her. You should be proud of yourself. That's quite an accomplishment. Dumbass dependent class.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

No, it means what it says.

You can't read.

You just assume.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I see you aren't trying to attack this from a religious stand point but, most of the Catholic owned businesses and schools were already providing contraception coverage.

Why do you suppose they were doing that? a) It costs less to provide birth benefits to those who want children when accidental pregnancies are reduced (which also reduces abortions, which we all want to reduce.) b) They want to attract women who want a contraception benefit which is virtually all Catholics and non Catholics in the work force. c) They want to show they are not so out of date and out of step with what 99% of the US population believes and practices and aren't being dictated to by a hand full of men who have never faced an unwanted pregnancy and never will.

I haven't heard the insurance companies howling about how much this will cost them. Why? Because it ACTUALLY saves them money. I guess it about makes it free. There is a lot of preventative medicines that save money.

You don't want anybody getting something for nothing (and you are willing to ignore and distort the facts to argue your point). In this case, if the employer provides insurance, they can provide it with contraceptives at no extra cost because it saves what it costs.

You just need to find a different situation to use to argue your point, but your intellectual dishonesty won't be cured by that. I I am certainly not interested in further conversation with you of that reason. Try another forum or another user name. This one has a bad odor.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

No, it's two things: 1) Government has no business telling anyone what to include or not include in a policy. It shouldn't be illegal to buy basic healthcare insurance. Now it is. ; 2) Her case for needing subsidy is bullshit. The costs are small and her crybaby argument of helplessness isn't remotely credible.

We're in one strange fucking place when society has more at stake in whether or not you take your damn birth control than you do. But the depth of our socialist hole is a poor argument for yet more socialism.

[-] 5 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

We're not paying for anybody's sex life, but I'll gladly pay for you not to reproduce.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That would be a great option for all dittoheads..........:)

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Another liberal that can't answer a simple question. How is unreasonable to ask that she (and her partners) buy their own birth control before government steps in and makes someone else pay for it?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The insurance corporations.

Now a question for you.

How do we shut up a dedicated big fat liar?

A proven one like rush.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Have his advertisers (ex?) continue to kick him repeatedly in the balls as they cancel their accounts.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

We are but cavemen. Your modern, sophisticated and common sense suggestions confuse and frighten us, therefore we shall shun them.

I'd fire anyone in my world that remotely thought I should have to pay for their BC pills or condoms.

The reason none will answer you is that there are no answers which, when given, results in the answerer looking like anything other than a goddam leach that is capable of copulating, but, without any adult responsibility.

Anyone believing others should have to pay for the contraception of others will be laughed at when the government takes it one more step forward and forces them to be rightfully sterilized.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

That's what the leftists can't get. They claim to love freedom. But they follow their noses to the smell of something "free" right into losing their freedom. When government pays for birth control, government controls birth control. Government makes nothing free, it just takes and gives. Liberals just can't comprehend these simple points.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

They have no idea for every inch of freedom they force others to give up to "help them out", the opposition, now cloaked as their parents handing them their allowances, will take a mile.

I'm thinking it's a good thing to give them so once that precedent has been set, you and I can pick and choose who has to be surgically sterlized or done so with radiation.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

They're welcoming the further politicizing of healthcare being dumb enough to think they're getting something for free. Gotta love those freedom loving liberals. It's sad too. Birth control is ubiquitous and cheap.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I'm thinking donkey punch and bagina stomping sessions would be enjoyable for many and effective for those wanting responsibility free copulation at the expense of others.

Next they'll be wanting me to buy their after coitus marlboros.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Sure it is. And, doubtful, I can't imagine you paying for your own things let along someone else's.

But leftists just can't answer the question. In terms of priorities, someone else should pay for her birth control before she should pay for it, why?

Is someone stopping her from buying birth control? See, it seems to be everywhere at pretty cheap prices. Well, cheap, in terms of it's cheaper than a cellphone. Cheap in terms of about $1 a condom. I'm just curious who exactly it is that's denying her birth control.

More fun math: $3,000 / $1/condom = 3,000 subsidized fucks that somehow the world owes Susan Flake. I'm just asking why? She must not be very good in bed if she isn't even worth the birth control.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

There are women who can't afford a cell phone yet sex is a normal human urge. You just don't see people like they were your brothers or sisters and you don't see your fellow Americans as part of your community. You're the one whose priorities are not with the well-being of this country. Try to see outside your own petty little world for once.

[-] 1 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

Keep on, insist the government has this power over others and it will be made stronger for use against YOU.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Bullshit. Birth control is already widely free or at minuscule cost as part of our welfare system. Running this subsidy deeper into the middle class and beyond via government mandate is indefensible. Susan Flake and her partners can pay for their own fucking. If they have the "urge", surely that urge is worth a buck or two before begging it off their neighbors.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That is the problem with you right-wing whack-jobs, when you're confronted with the truth of your own neurosis you become almost violently angry and start swearing and ranting. I bet it's all you can do to keep the drool off your keyboard.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Gee, share with me the truth. LOL. Another liberal non-response. Really, the questions are so simple too.

Test out your math skills, sweetie. Tuition alone at Georgetown Law School is about $23k/year. Add living expenses and you're well over $30k. Birth control is what share of her spending? Sure, she needs welfare.

If so, that raises an interesting point: Is she being "underserved" by her neighbors in any other way? Should they be buying her toothpaste? How about tampons? Isn't it wrong that she pay for them herself?

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/finaff/studaccts/tuition.html

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

It isn't about her. It's about us, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

You need welfare too? Why? If you have such a great case for subsidy, knock on your neighbor's door and make it. See how far you get. Tell them, "See this cellphone? You should be buying my birth control before I give this up. You should pay for it before I even ask my boyfriend."

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Same tired stuff. You couldn't get Social Security knocking on your neighbors door either. And just as I said, you completely failed to understand what I was saying.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

But explain to me why you need welfare. You wrote how it isn't about Susan, but how it's about you. Please, make your pitch for why you can't be expected to buy your own birth control. Explain to me why it's your neighbor's problem first and you and your partner's problem second. It's gotta be pretty easy, huh?

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Please tell me what I was really saying. If you're bright enough to do that I'll answer your questions.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

God knows. Now you're saying that you don't deserve welfare and a birth control subsidy? Now you're saying that it's your responsibility first, then your neighbor's? Is this progress?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Don´t be so obsessed with people getting free rides. It´s fine! Let´s spread the wealth around, big time! :)

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

What's next, a post about Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore?

I guess I just wish we could let these completely slimy troll posts die a natural death.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

You mean the creepy UTube they did where they don't understand that the President works for the people? That one? LOL.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

The issue isn't Ms. Fluke's sex life, it isn't even birth control, the issue is health insurance and what they will or will not cover.

In this case it is hormone therapy aka birth control.

For those who still refuse to understand, I'll try to explain it even more simply.

Hormone therapy is a prescribed drug (hormones) which necessitates an examination by a doctor, preferably an OB/GYN, or a doctor who specializes in female issues.

IF hormone therapy is covered along with prenatal care etc, no problem, if it isn't covered then females are subject to not having the examination covered under insurance, an examination which could include tests that can cost hundreds and at times thousands of dollars.

It is a health issue, sex has nothing to do with it.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

I agree it is a health issue or question, but we should stop the rhetoric and debate the issue without the flames. The question I have are contraception drugs a "health need" or an "life choice option"? The same test should apply to a lot of coverages. It would go along way to reducing the unnecessary cost burdens on health care systems that mandates are trying to legislate. Is there any agreement? Where is the common ground that should be found (and then go from there) instead of the bashing of each other which prevents any real honest discussion?

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well then if a Dr. prescribes a medication for treatment of an ailment I think that should cover the necessity.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

I would agree, but we should be careful of the prescription methods. There are many prescriptions written purely on the want of the patient rather than on the need. Just for example, look at the terrible misuse of painkillers and depressants and anti-depressants. somehow there should be a way to work this one out. This is a very complex topic and there are many factors that would go into how drugs would be classified into need and life choice. Just to note, I am not against contraception pharmaceuticals.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If a male College Athlete takes hormones he is banned from competition by the NCAA, if a Female College athlete takes hormones she gets to go before congress to request funding for same. Equal protection under the law?

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

If a male College Athlete takes hormones odds are they are not a therapy for a hormonal imbalance. There are few men who are of an age to compete athletically who have a testosterone deficiency.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Oh, so now you are playing the part of an expert medical doctor as well as expert mental doctor. Too bad you don't know crap about the legalities of owning firearms and present quite certain that you do.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I have seen no need to discuss firearms regulations with anyone on this forum the only reason I did in any capacity was in answer to a question which I declined to answer in the method the questioner desired.

Oh, nice choice of a second or third or fourth screen name.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

You talk lots of crap.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Great, cancel the cell phone and buy your pills. Government has no business making mandates about what's in or out of private health insurance plans. Sure, they can require disclosure and enforce contracts, but what's in the contracts in none of their business. Her whole story isn't remotely credible, but glides by without the slightest critical assessment.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Now that I've demonstrated that as a 'issue' this is 99% emotional, I can point out that it's a non-issue.

Thousands are screaming "I don't want to pay for YOUR birth control"...while it should be something for the courts. Instead today it has become a political issue, which distracts the populace from the REAL issues facing us today.

To be honest government has always made mandates for private business, all governments have and will continue to do so. In some time periods it was called standardization, today we call it regulation.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Simple questions about something that never happened and now you know it and you refuse to find out the truth that you have been misrepresenting time after time after time on this thread.

If it didn't happen as you state, then what is the relevance of your questions? Since it didn't, why did you base your questions on it?

If you knew it wasn't as you were representing it, why did you bother to use it as the basis of your loaded questions? It would have been to give credence to a false premise, wasn't that it? Questions based on a false premise are a waste of everyone's time and deserve no answer.

If you want to start a thread, try a good faith representation of an actual event or verifiable fact then state your position or ask a question relevant to the event or fact. I recognize that you are new in these parts or have relabeled yourself to avoid your track record. In either case, you aren't off to a good (re)start.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Why do you get to make an issue of something you haven't listened to or read a transcript of? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? You want some credibility? Find out what she actually said and transcribe it right here. Then we can discuss it.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'b' : Too true and perhaps more apt for discussion would be :

  • "Banksters Fuck Up : We're Screwed, We Pay but 'our' Government is Bought" !!!

ad iudicium ...

[+] -6 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

She's either a leftist hack or her and her friends are utterly helpless. Let's see, I have a cyst and, rather than buy some cheap birth control pills, I'll make no adjustments in life because that's just not possible, and cast my fate to the unfair winds of an evil and big meany institution. Bullshit. Sure, law school tuition, healthcare insurance, etc., but it was birth control that broke the bank. What a laugh. Yeah, and sure, it's birth control that's keeping her alive, yet she chooses a school that won't buy it for her. So, have government make them buy it for her. Great solution.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You should really improve your literacy rather than listening and believing Rush Limbaugh.

Sandra Fluke made no reference to her own sexual activities or preferences. She certainly has the right to express her opinions about contraception on behalf of her clients, just as you do, though I'm sure her's are--somewhere along the line--supported by facts rather than just a gust of hot air.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Cut it out. You know some of the posters here have a problem dealing with reality.

They just have to believe everything Rush says is the "truth".

Dittoheads have been having that problem for decades.

They ignore the part about Rush being a big fat liar.

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Susan Flake's birth control, apparently, should be paid for by someone else before she (and her partners) should be expected to pay for it themselves. Why? Is it really that hard to answer?

Here's another funny one: She cited $3,000 in cost. Condoms are about a buck a piece. So, Susan wants 3,000 subsidized fucks. She's not that good looking. Should government make her neighbor buy her batteries too?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's just what the big fat liar said, along with his cohorts at FLAKESnews..

You're fool enough to believe that shit.

I feel sorry for you, being so reality challenged.

You should go clean up.You smell funny.

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Thanks for your concern, but that's yet another liberal non-response. Are the questions that hard? Is reason that tough? Maybe we can get a subsidy for you to learn some reasoning skills?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What question?

You just spew bile. Like the big fat liar.

Are you a dittohead?

If that is so, it explains you being reality challenged.

Perhaps comprehensive health care would help you.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Why is Sandra Fluke's sex life for someone else to pay for? Somehow, Sandra having sex is a charity case worthy of government mandate? Why? Is someone stopping her from buying birth control? Who? What else should we be buying Sandra Fluke? Is there a list somewhere?

You ever think of reading the forum you're posting in?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's not.

You really should shut off the Rush, it's destroying your ability to reason.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

I don't listen to Rush; I'm at work when he's on.

Great, it isn't for someone else to pay for. You disagree with the majority of liberals. Congratulations.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's what they all say.

Unfortunately, they lie a lot. A whole lot.

Amazing how you can quote him almost verbatim, yet claim you don't listen.

You should be sent home from whatever work you do to take a shower.

You smell worse than your rhetoric.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

You should pay your own bills and come up with legitimate answers to my simple questions.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

More smelly rhetoric, and assumptions??

Go ahead, ask a simple question. In fact, try and make it a legitimate question, if you can.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Another non-answer. Liberals just have a really hard time with this one.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Well Mack. that's not a question, nor is it an answer.

Just confusion. Is that what you do best?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Why don't you go listen to what she actually said instead of Rush's totally fabricated version?

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

So, then she really is just some leftwing plant? Why was she there? Why was she talking about her personal financing situation and the apparent burden of buying contraception without welfare?

But more importantly, why should government take from someone else, before she and her partner(s) are expected to buy it themselves? This seems to be a really tough question.

She can say what she pleases. Freedom of speech is fine, well, unless you're Rush Limbaugh. LOL.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Ditto my first post, but take it personally.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

What does it say about the Republican Party when their Chief Spokesmen is a drug addicted degenerate who thinks it’s Ok to defame a defenseless College Girl.? Does Rush really believe he’s going to get away with this outrage?

Who is going to defend him? What Self Respecting, Red Blooded, American Woman (which apparently excludes all conservative women) can support a Multi-Millionaire with the power of a Nationwide Radio show, who doesn’t just slander a hard working American Co-Ed, but goes on to call 99% of American Women Sluts?

What Red Blooded American man can accept such behavior? What man can stand silently by while his wife is being called a slut by a drug addict? That might be Ok with Callista, but I can tell you right now, my God Fearing Wife is offended! As are my two daughters, and all the other women in my family! Rush has got to go!

Rush has become Pornographic! He has no “Redeeming Social Value!” He’s a scab on the body politic! Why does anyone condone his ravings? Has the Republican Party lost all sense of Decency! The silence on the Right is more than deafening, it’s disgusting! If you can’t find a place in your Christian Heart to defend a young American woman who’s being verbally raped by a millionaire, something is wrong with your heart.

Rush should be fired, and he should be fired now! Everybody in America has the right to Freedom of Speech. Nobody has the right to have a Radio Show! That is a privilege! A privilege Rush Limbaugh should have lost a long time ago.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

"Rush should be fired, and he should be fired now! Everybody in America has the right to Freedom of Speech." Do you realize just how ignorant you sound? You want to have someone fired for speaking their mind and in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE say everyone has the right to free speech. What a moron you are.

[-] 3 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

As usual Republican Apologists Cherry Pick their Truths. At least when you quote me, you should indicate that there is something else that you left unsaid.

The second part of that remark is what's valid! Close your eyes to the truth all you want, but Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has a Right to have a Radio Show!

Your "God" can talk all he wants on the Street! But you have to be some kind of Fool to believe that his First Amendment rights extend to infesting the Public Airways with his Filth, OK!

Have you lost all sense of Decency and Morality?? He just called Your Mother & your Sister a Whore! And, you're out here defending him??? What's wrong with you?

I may be a Moron, but it don't take no genius to know Right from Wrong, my Friend. A skill that has obviously eluded you and most of your friends on the Right.

Rush should be held accountable for his Sins! You guys on the Right love accountability, or are you a hypocrite too!

Fire Rush, and Fire him now!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Having the legal right to free speech is not the same as having any moral right to hate speech, and the latter should not be supported by advertisers or employers or the public. No one is calling for his arrest - that would be a violation of his rights - but for his dismissal.

Petitioning and boycotting his advertisers is an exercise in free speech, too.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Morals have nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And the private sector has nothing to do with free speech, either. Limbaugh's rights have not been violated, since no government action was taken to suppress his speech.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

I never said that. I said "You want to have someone fired for speaking their mind and in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE say everyone has the right to free speech." Which is EXACTLY what you did. You don't want ANYONE to hear any other viewpoint than YOURS. You are a sad little pathetic insecure fool. Yup that sums it up fairly well. Where was all your feigned outrage when Ed Schulz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut" and "talk slut". I'd bet my life savings the only words you said were "Hell Yes". Who are you to censor people? You're just a fucking little Hitler wannabe who wants everyone to goosestep to your beat because you "know" you are right and everyone else is wrong. FUCKING NAZI.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Hey, moron, free speech doesn't mean unopposed speech. Nor does it mean that people strongly objecting to someone's paid statements need to continue to financially support those who are paying for those statements. That's called free speech, too. You only like free speech when your hate mongering nazi friends do it, but when the other side exercise their free speech, all of a sudden you cry (and cry and cry) foul.

Boo hoo. Poor little right winger.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Just listen to yourself you ignorant fuck.You can say what you want and I could care less. There's a reason left wing talk radio flopped,no one cares to listen to your dumb ass positions. I'm just calling you on your HYPOCRACY because you called for Rush to be fired and in THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE SAID "Everybody in America has the right to Freedom of Speech" You're so fucking dumb you can't even comprehend the stupidity of your post.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The reason talk radio didn't do well is that idiots like you can't follow complex thought instead of simple empty-headed slogans. It's not dumbed down for right wing morons.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Umm I hate to tell you this but NOBODY LISTENED. The facts are all there if you look at ratings,etc. How typical of you to say that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and too stupid to understand.Arrogant arsehole aren't you? You know what is right for everyone? Hardly,you're just a simple pimple on the ass of humanity.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yup, the PBS News Hour got lower ratings than Starsky and Hutch, too. But looking at a Camaro run around wasn't a good source of actual information. Ratings have a way of measuring the lowest common denominator, not ideas. Of course, you're too fucking stupid to make that, or virtually, any distinction. Hitler was pretty popular in his day, too, among his listeners. The distinction between him and Limbaugh is virtually nonexistent.

Not everyone who disagrees with me is dumb. Just right wing assholes whose two semi-functioning brain cells can't communicate with each other, like you.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Your are correct sir. It does require some thought along with listening skills. Tis not for the faint of heart or weak of mind.

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

defenseless collge girl?? wrong. she a nancy pelosi plant. attending a Jesuit university and according to her she cant afford birth control. thousands for education but can't " afford " to buy a box of condoms. what a joke. by the way FREE condoms are available in D.C.

[-] 3 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Excuse me??? Who the hell are you trying to kid! The only people who plant folks in the audience to embarasss politicians are Tea Party Members. Just because the Party of Vaginal Probes uses ringers doesn't mean that this young lady is one.

Everything is not politics. Some people actually believe that what you're doing is wrong, and they're letting you know it. Disregard them at your own peril!

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

fluke is a plant.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Even if she is, it aint no excuse to call her a Slut over the Radio!

Why do people have to tell you that!

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

on his program bill mahr called sarah palin " a dumb twat",................you think that's o.k.?

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And, what did she call him on her Show??? Sister Sarah isn't a College Girl with no cash. She was a candidate for the highest Office in the land, and had the most powerful people in the country behind her. It is disgusting for you to even try to conflate the two. And, you don't really want to start a debate on the Vile things that Rush has called the President, do you?

Why are you even trying to justify one by citing the other? Do you think that it somehow makes it Ok for Rush to do what he did, because Maher did wht he did? Come on, aint you got the good sense that God gave a Rock? Two wrongs don't make the Right, right!

And not for nothing, Sarah Palin IS a Dumb Twat, and Rush agrees! Fluke is nowhere near the Slut you paint her out to be, and that my Friend is why Rush isn't long for the Radio scene. Everybody can see that but you.

But what bothers me about all this, is that in all your haste to attack me, you failed to get the original question. Which was, and still is, What does all this say, about the Republican Party??? Argue all you want, but I'll tell you it aint good!

But, you won't have to answer for that till November.

Remember, Women never forget!

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

In other words it's only wrong if it'd done to a woman you like/support. Igarz is Ignorant. No one is saying what Rush said was right,what people are talking about is the HYPOCRISY of the left. You poor lemming.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Excuse Me! No one is saying Rush is Right??? What Rock are you living under?

No one on the Right is saying that Rush is wrong, and that's the problem. You simply cannot compare an attack on a Powerful Conservative Woman with a Syndicated Political Talk Show to and attack on a defensless College Girl with an Ipod and get away with it in this America.

The Hypocracy on the Left??? Are you kidding me? The Hypocracy coming from the Right pales in comparison to anything the Left can do. The Hypocrisy is so pervasive on the Right, that the Left has to come up with a whole new name for it, like LYING.

I'm a poor Lemming??? Really??? I'm not the one following Rush Limbaugh off a Cliff trying to defend the indefensible, that's on you!

I may be ignorant Pal, but I aint Moronic enough to try to justify what amounts to a Verbal Rape of a American Gollege Girl by a Mulit Millionaire! That might be OK in France, but it don't play well here.

But, what can I expect from a "Koch Head" who thinks a Blunt Rubio Vaginal Probe is a good idea! You need a better Perspective, Pal!

I suggest to you that If you're going to Walk around with your Koch Head up your Ass, you should at least dust off your Belly Button so you can see what's going on around you.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Good Lord,did you even read what you wrote? It's okay for Maher to call Palin a "dumb twat" and "cunt" because she's a "Powerful Conservative Woman"? You make me sick.Your hypocricy just spews out. What the fuck is verbal rape? You moron he called her a slut and a prostitute.Whether he was right to do so,who knows. we have this little thing called freedom of speech. If that's his opinion then that's his opinion right or wrong. You're just a typical left wing hater. YOU HATE anyone who disagrees with with such malice it's sick.Guess what? Most of the USA is to the right and disagrees with people like you on a whole lot of things. You want to FORCE everyone to adopt your beliefs because you know you have all the answers and everyone should live as you think is right. Take your fucking beliefs and stick em up yer arse pal.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

the republican party has always championed civil rights, the dems,......... always voted against it.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

What!!! That has got to be the Biggest Half Truth in the last Century!

Republicans were Ok with Civil Rights until Reagan became President and all the Racist Dems became the Republicans of Today! Or have you chosen to ignore that little bit of Truth.

Stop Living in the Past. Teabaggers are still fighting the Civil War against Union Men, and would love to reimpose Slavery on everyone, even you! Try voting for it now, and see what happens. You aint fooling nobody with that bit of propaganda. OK.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

your just another braindead/brainwashed dem from ny.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Are you Kidding me!

This is coming from "Koch Head" who believes that forcing a woman to have a Blunt Rubio Vagina Probe is a good idea? Some one who thinks it's OK for a Mulit Millionaire with a Radio Talk Show to call a College Girl with an Ipod a Slut? This is someone who still believes that there are WMD's in Iraq, and cutting taxes on the rich will create Prosperity!

And, I'm the one who's Brain Dead??? If the Truth smacked you in the face you would wait for Rush to tell it's Ok to before you believed it. Get Real!

Dude! Stop Drinking the Kool-Aid, It's made in China.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

i read your rant, i was right !! your a braindead/brainwashed lib.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And, I was right, you just can't argue with a Koch Head.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

I see you're still braindead/brainwashed,.....and loving it !

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It's a parasite ( see liver fluke ) just like the greedy corrupt and their hirelings.

[+] -5 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

She isn't a defenseless college girl, she's a leftist tool pushing an agenda and a lie that not being able to make someone else buy her birth control is the same thing as being prohibited from buying birth control.

[-] 3 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Jeez! If you was in Rome, you would be rooting for the Lions, saying that the Christians aint defenseless, cause they got hands! Unbelievable!

She aint got no radio show to defend herself with! She doesn't suck on a Golden Phallus everyday to push her Leftist Agenda! She aint got no friends like Bill O the Clown!

If you think a Multi-Millionaire who has the power of Fox news behind him, versus a College Girl is a fair fight, something is seriously wrong with you!

The fact that you can't see the the difference it's astonishing! if you were a Hebrew fighting the Philistines, you would be rooting for Goliath! Cause you're really a Phlistine! Goliath lost that fight, and Rush will lose this one.

The only agenda I, or anyone else who isn't a Teabagger, sees in this case, is the Blunt Rubio/Vaginal Probe Anti Woman Agenda that is being pushed by the Right!

It's just like a bunch of Right Wing Cowards like you to pick on someone you think can't fight back. But, this classy lady is gonna bring down Rush, and you're gonna have to find Glen Beck for your News! Good luck with that! Fire Rush, and Fire him now!

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Nope, just looking for a little personal responsibly. It the waterfall of responsibility, you come before your neighbor when it comes to buying birth control. Radical, huh?

Classy lady? She's just a well-dressed panhandler looking her piece of subsidy. What would be really classy is if she had the dignity to know that birth control is her and her partners' responsibility, not her neighbor's.

[-] 3 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

OMG! You've been listening to Fox News for so long, you can't even recognize CLASS when you see it!

I guess you think Snooky is your idea of a classy lady, Right?

And not for nothing, Why don't you ask your buddy to take some personal responsibility for his actions? Ever thought of that! The next time any Republican accepts responsibility for anything it will be the first time! You can't even take responsibiltiy for Tanking the Economy and causing the Recession! But you can't wait to point your finger at a Student.

What a Guy!

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

That's class? LOL. She went on national TV with her hand out claiming to be helpless. Yeah, classy. And no, Snooky isn't classy either. I didn't say she was.

[-] 3 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yeah it's Class. It's the kind of quiet American Class that your mother wishes you had.

She stood up to a Bully, and the Bully lost his mind. that's what happens when Ass Meets Class! The Ass loses.

If you had any kind of clue about courage, you would know that it's built on Class, and praise this LADY in stead alibing for a piece of profanity like Rushbo. You do know that he's a Drug Addict, right?

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

A quiet American on national TV peddling wild exaggerations with her hand out. Sure, and relating stories of her utterly helpless friends with fragile senses of self and priorities that place cell phones ahead of buying your own pills. Yeah, pure class.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

agian. the government currently pays for birthcontrol thru family planning,, this law would shift that government expense from you to private companies are you stupid

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Having employers pay for drugs is fine, as long as it doesn't violate that employer's first amendment right to freely exercise his or her religion. This isn't some new thing with the Catholic church, made up to avoid paying for something. Birth control pills are cheep, this is one of the few times it is actually the principle of the thing and not the money.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

birth control is not cheap if it was.. this would not be happening. and now is the time to force companies to take over the cost. while they are slashing birth control.. they are also slashing food stamps.. do you really want to be driving down the road looking at starving unwanted kids eating out a dumpsters just to make yourself feel good about 'issues'

States slash birth control subsidies as federal debate rages

http://news.yahoo.com/states-slash-birth-control-subsidies-federal-debate-rages-224509267.html

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It becomes a big item in State budgets when they give it out free to thousands of people. The pill itself can be purchased for anywhere between $15 and $30 a month add in a doctor visit a year at about $100 to $150. I agree with you completely about services like this being provided for the poor, but that's not what the original post was about.

The whole thing involving Fluke is about what was in the college health plan at Georgetown. The undergraduate tuition is over $40,000 a year. The school's web site estimates that when you add in books, fees, room and board the cost is around $58,300 a year. You're not exactly dealing with the food stamp crowd here.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

how much do condoms cost?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You'll find out when you're old enough to use them.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

it was a rhetorical question, dumbo.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I keep forgetting that all you are is rhetoric.

It's all you're capable of, and it shows.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

condoms are not birthcontrol.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

are you familiar with them? They most certainly are a form of birth control.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

they are only 85% effective..

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

so,...............you do know what they are and they're safer that birth control pills.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

they are not effective enough for every 1000 women thats 150 unwanted people in the world

[-] 1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

abstinence is 100% effective.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

hhmm well the catholic church does that with priest.. you see what happens to men without sex.. they have sex with children.. abstinence as an adult is not healthy

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

No, forcing employers to even provide medical insurance at all is not right.

Not in the least bit.

No more than the masses should be forced to work for employer A or B.

This is to get all of you clouded thinking people ready for how things are when your world is completely insitutionalized, maybe like the prison it already is or maybe some internment or relocation camp.

You bleeding hearts may as well line up, have your noses hog ringed, ears tagged and get to work.

Don't sweat a thing, 3 hots and a cot, everything is included.

Get back to work, instant coffee break is over.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The whole mandate is going to be looked at by the Supreme Court and they'll give us the only opinion that matters. I'm personally in favor of a single payer system, but that isn't going to happen. I see the current law as a mess and would prefer nothing instead.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Oh, the same court that gave the "only opinion that matters" on Citizens United?

Roight, ol chap!

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Citizens United is a little misunderstood, corporations already had that personhood thing established form decisions in the late 1800's. I was more upset by Kelo, an eminent domain case that took private property when the city could get more taxes from a big development. What can you do? Vote in people that want a new constitution I guess.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

this law would shift that "government" expense from "you" to private companies

and who exactly do you think owns private companies?

oh that's right, not any of "you"

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Are you that helpless? Can you read? The government pays for some family planning and birth control via essentially welfare programs.

Is Sandra Flake a welfare case? Why is Sandra Flake's sex life for someone else to pay for? WHY?

Is someone stopping Sandra from getting birth control? Who's doing that?

What else should government take from other people and give to Sandra Fluke?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

no one else execpt the company she works for will be paying .. how does that affect you?? the insurance company at the job will be paying for . this law has no bearing on government assisted birthcontrol.. how can you be so stupid to think that if your insurance covers something it is costing taxpayers?? it will remove that cost from taxpayers. do you pay for everyone on a payroll ;s office visits? surgeries.. this law will remove the cost of birthcontrol from the government and place that cost on corporations! you sound like an idiot thinking this law says that taxpayers are going to be paying ..

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Hers is just an example. The government mandate affecting her affects ALL providers and all insureds. So, they'll be a Sandra Fluke in everyone's plan because of government.

Smarten up, the law doesn't place the cost on "corporations", it places it on us.

But your own damn birth control. No one is stopping you and there's no reason for cross-subsidies of this simple cost.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

yes there will be women ,, married and not.. that work that will get birthcontrol and so it should be.. do you really want more babies in trash cans that bad? you dont want abortions,, you dont want birthcontrol.. what do you want done with all those babies that no one wants? this would also shift the cost onto men in a more equitable way and stop the pretense that woman are the only ones responsible for birthcontrol

http://news.yahoo.com/states-slash-birth-control-subsidies-federal-debate-rages-224509267.html

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Shift the cost to men in an equitable way? Huh? We have paternity rules about that now. That's how to handle it. Forcing subsidy of birth control also forces gay men to pay for it? Was that what you had in mind? LOL.

It's about responsibility transfer. We're one fucked up society when your neighbor has more at stake in your decisions than you do. You can't be expected to find the motivation for birth control, but we can mandate that your neighbor will. What have we become?

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

paternity rules?? not your neighbor.. men that have sex . if your neighbor is a man that has sex then its completley fair that he pay for birthcontrol gay men already get the taxpayer money to pay for aids treatments.. totally avoidable expense just like birthcontrol.. insurance covers that too

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Fluke is attempting to insert herself and change the debate away from freedom of religion. Look at this poor woman that lost her ovary because she didn't feel like paying for the pill. She wants you to look at it as a emotional issue instead of a constitutional one.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Exactly. It doesn't stand up to thinking and reason. It is about freedom of religion. It's also about personal responsibility and how the inability to force someone else to buy you something is NOT the same thing are you being prohibited from buying it yourself.

There's some other interesting math here. She cites $3,000 for birth control over law school. Condoms are about $1 each. So, she plans on 3,000 fucks during school, twice as many if her boyfriend(s) pay half. Honestly, she's not that good looking. I'd think her bill for batteries would be higher than her bill for condoms. Let's subsidize that too.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Free exercise of religion ends where medicine begins. Period. There are no grey areas. You can't use leeches or prayer-only in a hospital. Quackery is not medicine and religious quackery is quackery all the same. And the fact that 80% of the people who rail against birth control and abortion are sexually inadequate men makes me really not give a crap what people like you think.

You're wrong and juvenile. End of story.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The government can't force any adult to accept medical treatment. You can lie in a hospital bed and die of a preventable condition and there is nothing anyone can do about it. It also takes the intervention of the courts to force parents to have a minor child treated against their religious beliefs.

The pill and abortion are lifestyle medical services, for the most part, like vasectomies or Rogaine treatments. True there are medical conditions outside preventing pregnancy where birth control pills are used and in a few circumstances an abortion may be necessary to save the life of the mother. No one is trying to stop the employee from going out and getting either on their own. An employer should not be forced to violate their religion so that you can enjoy any particular life style.

In the end it's a Supreme Court issue, we've restricted religious freedom in the case of the mormons and polygamy it may happen here too. But the case for religious freedom certainly has some merit.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You can refuse medical treatment and you can administer all kinds of whacky treatments on yourself. The only reason a court is required to intervene in cases involving minors is because all the decision-makers are talking about a third party and none of them can assert absolute rights. If a child has been brought to a medical facility and the doctors believe a life-saving procedure is necessary, they can't just sweep the parents out of the way. But a court can, and does every time.

I'm really getting tired of arguing with conservatives about "the principle of the matter." It's always about "the principle" with you people until it isn't anymore. It's about "the principle" with taxes for the rich until it isn't anymore with respect to payroll taxes. It's about "the principle" with gay marriage until it isn't anymore with divorce. It's about "the principle" with drugs until it isn't anymore with Oxycontin. It's about "the principle" with affirmative action until it isn't anymore with legacy.

Over and over and over again, what's good for the goose is never-ever-ever good for the gander in conservaland. You must be exhausted with the mental gymnastics you have to go through to justify all your contradictions. I'm exhausted just looking at them.

"The principle" of the matter doesn't matter for squat in this instance. It's a total waste of time and a reckless thought experiment that flies in the face of reality. Why? Because study after study after study has shown that widespread, low-cost or free access to birth control is the most effective way to lower the abortion rate.

It doesn't matter what you're libertarian ideal says. When the rubber meets the road, we have dozens of reasons to support proper and full coverage of all reproductive health services for women. It benefits our entire society in a myriad of ways. The fact that you don't understand those ways is no reason to ignore decades of medical and social experience. This is why such arguments are juvenile. You can stand on principle all day long and the people who know the reality of birth control's role in our culture are never, under any circumstances, going to care.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

As far as your first paragraph goes, I think we both are saying the same thing, and are in agreement.

You've made some incorrect assumptions about me and my political beliefs. The only thing I'm commenting on is my perception of what the Catholic Church's position is in this whole mess involving Fluke and comments that it was somehow only about sex (that's probably due to what I've read about Limbaugh's foolish comments on the whole thing).

The Church's position is based on their interpretation of the first amendment. My opinion, yours, Ms. Flukes don't really matter. If neither the church nor the government back down the only opinion that will matter is that of the Supreme Court. There is president both ways, until then it's just discussion and we're all entitled to have an opinion.

Again my opinion is that Fluke is attempting to alter the debate and make it a more emotional issue and center it on the people receiving the insurance rather then on the religion of those being required to pay the premiums. If there is a god, only he knows what happens in Limbaugh's head, I think he's actually helped Fluke unintentionally.

My opinion on health care is that the Democrats missed a golden opportunity not pushing harder for single payer when they had the House and Senate. This wouldn't be an issue if they had won real health care for us.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Sorry if I jumped the gun on you. The point at which you jumped into the thread gave the impression you were piling on. And while we can agree over the particulars of the legal mechanisms, I think blaming Fluke for anything is misplaced. She was fighting her own local battle on this issue for three years before Issa, Limbaugh and the House Dems made her famous. And from what I can tell, most of her argument is economic and medical. The people trying to turn her into a hysterical ball of emotion are her opponents, not herself.

I care about practical applications of practical solutions to yield practical results. That's what makes me a progressive. I don't care one whit about "principle." I care only about how the rubber meets the road and the impact policy has on the health of our society as a whole. That's it. That's my criteria. Does it do the most good? I don't care if someone's philosophy is violated and I don't care if religious institutions think their opinions are more important than mine. It's still just an opinion, and one that I think is not only wrong, but has been proven to be dangerous and largely antithetical to a healthy culture. If the Catholics want to rumble, let's effing rumble. Because last I checked, they still had a man-boy love problem and I don't brooks assholes kindly.

I hope that sheds some light on my perspective. Thanks for the reasoned reply.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I could easily have given you that impression. It's a bias of mine, I dislike any argument made by anecdote. Fine to give an example to clarify and idea, but holding that example up as the rule with no facts to back it up creates more problems then solutions.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Let her buy her own. You still have no case why the bill for her sex life should be mailed to someone else. Radical, huh?

Government has no business mandating what's covered in a private healthcare policy. Let them mandate disclosure and not flaking on claims that are covered by the policy, but what's in the policy is between employer and employee. If the employee doesn't like it, just like if they don't like pay, vacation days, their co-workers, or the commute, they should work somewhere else. If birth control is somehow bizarrely key to them getting employees, the employer will notice that soon enough in turn-over.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Although this figure may appear expensive to some, when compared with the estimated $10,000.00 expense per normal childbirth, the cost of female contraception is relatively low. In fact, a 1995 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that used cost data from managed care plans provided by large employers in 45 major metropolitan areas to compare the costs and benefits of contraceptive use found that all 15 of the contraceptive methods reviewed were cost-effective when compared with the direct medical costs of unintended pregnancy that resulted when methods were not used. The savings ranged from $9,000 to $14,000 per method over a five-year period; using oral contraceptives saved almost $13,000 over a five-year period.

This is why the insurance companies don't have a problem with it. The Catholic Church members want it, the nonCatholic employees and students want it and even the bishops have gone quiet. But you still have to lie and claim that you or taxpayers or the church is going to pay for it. You are lying.

[-] 2 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

? what?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You can get a generic birth control pill for $15-30 a month. Most kids pay twice that their cell phones, it's their choice. Buy your own pill.

Even abortions are inexpensive procedures, $300 to $900. If she pays $3000 a year that's easily doctor visits, a prescription for the pill and 2 abortions.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

All true. Their boyfriends can pitch in too. But they won't do any of that because we have millions of people that think someone else's pocket comes before their own. They all have a story, just like Flake. How the hell did we sink so far?

And just think of the simple math. $3,000 / $1/condom = 3,000 fucks. Frankly, she isn't that attractive. She probably goes through more in batteries. Let's get a subsidy for that too.

[-] 0 points by misterioso (86) 2 years ago

apparently you have no idea how birth control works, we are not talking about condoms here, we are talking about a prescription for a pill, a pill that women take once every day regardless of how much sex they have.......it does not matter if they are having sex 10 times a day or once every three months, they take the same amount of medication, so your comments, just like Limbaughs comments, are completely incoherent. Your ignorance is truly astounding . Also, you are apparently unaware of the multiple studies that show contraception coverage saves insurance companies money in the long run. This makes sense when you think about all the costs associated with unwanted pregnancies. So the argument that it will cost insurance companies and tax payers more is absurd......in fact, it will cost all parties less........by that same logic, the individual mandate will save money because as it stands now, we are subsidizing individuals who go to the ER without insurance, it they had insurance and could go to a doctor for checkups, we would save a lot of money...

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm aware of it. But your post does nothing to further the argument that it's your neighbor's responsibility before it's yours. Again, have we truly socialized the shit of things so much that it's more your neighbor's problem if you can pregnant than your own or the father's. Holy fuck. An argument that because we've created such horrific levels of socialism that we need even more socialism just to protect ourselves is truly fucked up.

The reason we subsidize people without insurance in the ER is because Congress forces ERs to drop their pants for uninsured people and left them defenseless. Combine that with users that think it's free, and that's the ER problem.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Sandra Fluke spoke before Congress about health insurance covering birth control, which is a prescription drug. You are a fucking idiot.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Stay on topic its the banks .IT's the banks

[-] 1 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

Number 1. Ms. Fluck and her friend who apparently "lost her ovary because she couldn't afford to pay for the birth control pills", is ovary-less for no good reason- all she had to do was go to her local clinic. And Ms. Flake isn't putting all that expensive education to use if she doesn't know that the Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the a Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.

The Title X Family Planning program is administered within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Population Affairs (OPA) by the Office of Family Planning (OFP). At least 90 percent of appropriated funding is used for clinical family planning services as described in the statute and regulations (45 CFR Part 59).

Nearly 100 Title X grantees provide family planning services to more than five million women and men through a network of over 4,500 community-based clinics that include State and local health departments, tribal organizations, hospitals, university health centers, independent clinics, community health centers, faith-based organizations, and other public and private nonprofit agencies. In approximately 75% of U.S. counties, there is at least one clinic that receives Title X funds and provides services as required under the Title X statute. Or, she could have gone to Target or Walmart and for about $4 to $10 gotten her pills each month, so Miss Overyless didn't need to lose her ovary AND no one needs to have their moral or religious beliefs trampled over by the government.

Number 2. As a nurse who cares for really ill people, Ms.Fluke's whole victimization role makes ME sick. She and all her female classmates for whom she claims she was speaking on behalf of (the ones who she says as she walks around the campus she sees their suffering in their eyes because they can't afford birth control) are women who are at one of the most expensive and top law schools in the entire country and who apparently in their first year out of school they can expect to be make $150- $160 K- which means they are headed for be longing for 1% . I don't hold hard work and the fact they will be making a lot of money against them, but spare me the victim, whining in her testimony at Pelosi's mock hearing. If they want to see victims, they need to go to a pain clinic or a burn dept., or a third world country. I never once expected someone else to pay for my birth control while I was in school. No one is entitled to someone else paying for their birth control.

Number 3. Ms. Fleck and the whole story has been brilliantly made up by the Obama Admin & Dems to deflect everyone from the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and the flack they were getting for trying to put an unnecessary expense, that many Catholics opposed in the law. (yes, some Catholic institutions were already paying for BC and many Catholic women use BC- it's kind of like when we say bad things about our relatives, but if someone else does, we stick up for them. Some Catholics simply don't want the government to force them to provide coverage while others are truly totally against it based on their religious beliefs) The Obama administration was able to tie Rick Sanatorium's far right stances and his recent comments into the whole false argument, so it all came together for them, and Ms. Fluke is was plucked out to use for their purposes.

Number 4. Today we have: -a generation who feels entitled to just about everything -living in a country that can't afford just about anything (because it's 15 TRILLION dollars in debt) - with a president who loves to spend the taxpayers money on just about thing

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Why is unwashed so dirty?Is unwased a charity case? Is someone stoping unwashed from cleaning up? Should there be a goverment mandate forcing unwashed to clean up?Who else could be a pig like unwashed?Should we chip in and buy unwashed a bath?

[-] 1 points by Coldinflorida (50) 2 years ago

I'm personally asexual but, i think we all should get the same allotment for sexual protection than others mine just happens to be a tazer and security cameras.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I am sure you feel the same outrage over government healthcare sponsored by the GOP called Medicare Part D providing Viagra, which causes more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, more poverty and and child abuse?

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

I wasn't aware that Viagra was being mandated. Do tell. Is the federal government forcing Viagra "coverage" into private healthcare insurance contracts? If so, is it doing so over the religious views of a group that's a party to the insurance?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Lets see, how narrow can we make the view so our issue almost shows but we can ignore the obvious one?

And why am I not surprised that your ignorance would include a major triumph of the GOP, Medicare Part D? All of this came out during the debate over the healthcare legislation. Of course the GOP who passed the Part D under circumstances that were bizarre, required the coverage of ED drugs. And in one of the few compromises that they got during the debate over Obamacare in exchange for, well the Dems got nothing in exchange for this one either, was CONTINUING to cover ED drugs. Ask your Dad or your Uncle or some dirty old man if his Viagra is covered by part D?

Then you can get back to addressing the consequences of broader use of Viagra. Shouldn't doctors be prescribing NO use of Viagra? It improves the effectiveness of abstinence. It decreases rape (I am pretty sure untreated ED reduces rape.) It reduces unwanted pregnancies (more than 40% are unwanted). It reduces the use of the morning after pill. It reduces the number of abortions.

Here is a case where removing ED pills from all insurance coverage would provide major improvements in all of the issues that matter most to you.

Surely you object just as vociferously to paying for a drug for other people that enables them to have casual sex?

It probably would have a greater effect on all of these issues than reducing the use of the birth control pill. So, you would support it right?

If you support the Blunt amendment, you should know that employers can withhold any treatment, drug or procedure that they find objectionable and that would obviously include Viagra.. There certainly people including you who categorically object to paying for other people to have sex. So many companies would drop Viagra, I am sure.

Have you ever used it??

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

don't all women have flukes ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

fluke

1    [flook] Show IPA

noun

1. the part of an anchor that catches in the ground, especially the flat triangular piece at the end of each arm.

2. a barb, or the barbed head, of a harpoon, spear, arrow, or the like.

3. either half of the triangular tail of a whale.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fluke

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

why are gay guys getting healthcare for aids?? thats thier sex life. its ok for men not for women?

[-] -1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

It isn't about sex. Georgetown, where Sandra Fluke's friend was a student, is a Catholic institution, they have always oppose birth control and do not include it on their health insurance. It's more a battle over a church's right to practice their religion then over anyone's sex life.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i dont see that whats in an isurance policy in anyway stops them from preaching what they believe.

[-] -1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

It stops them from practicing their faith. This regulation requires the church to facilitate abortions and the sale of birth control pills (both violate church teachings) by buying the coverage for employees. The church does not make a move to stop you using these services on your own, it just doesn't want to be forced into participating in the sin by buying these things for you.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

are you saying that insurance is free at these places? the employees do not pay premiums?

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I have no idea how much the employees pay, if riders to get extras are available or not. What I do know is that the government is forcing Catholic employers to place a religiously objectionable service on their policy. People don't seem willing to engage in semantic over what dollars go where when their religion is involved. You'd have to look at each policy to see who pays what. The church and government are either going to reach some compromise or the Supreme Court will get a chance to sort it all out.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that still does not prohibit the free establishment of nor the free practice of.. that religion. the constitution only guarantee that. it does not guarantee that they can use that religion as excuses to not obey laws.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I think the wording of he amendment stars with a statement prohibiting Congress from make a law that prevents anyone from following their religion. I'm not saying I'm in favor or opposed to the Church's position, it may turn out that like polygamy, the Supreme Court rules against the religion. Until there is a ruling or a compromise it's just an interesting thing to discuss.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

yes. it is something interesting to discuss. did you see that limbough has lost 7 sponsors now! maybe some companies do have some sense

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I don't listen to him so that's something else I don't care much about. I don't know what his rant was or how over top top he gets. He can say what he likes, but no one has to sponsor him either.

I do know you have to get down to number 10 or 11 on the list of most listened to radio shows before you find a liberal. So conservatives are either more entertaining or there seems to be some support for the basic conservative ideology.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

The problem is the mandate. If someone wants to sell a policy that specifically excludes HIV coverage, they should be free to sell it and you should be free to buy it.

It's also seeing her weeping nonsense exaggeration of her case for subsidy. AIDs is a devastating disease that I can understand someone wanting to buy coverage against. Birth control isn't. It's a routine matter that should be paid out-of-pocket. Those saying they can't afford it are mostly just lying and groveling for a shot at responsibility shedding.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

it isnt subsidy,, its insurance coverage. its a point of ease of access. if people didnt want government mandates they shoulda started back when they forced all companies to drug test

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Sure, it is. Piling more and more ordinary costs into insurance policies is inflationary.

Companies aren't forced to drug test. Maybe some special situations call for that like being an air traffic controller, but mine doesn't.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

well if you doubt it look at some want ads.. you will see that all of them list drug screen as part of the application and hiring process

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

They may, but not because of a mandate other than perhaps for some public safety-type positions.

[-] 0 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

5.00 is the cost of birth control pills at Wal-Mart not the 3,000.00 that she is claiming. I got some Percs 2 months ago at Wal-Mart and that was 7.95...Got to love Wal-Mart.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 2 years ago

Hey,, ,it's 2012,,,, why doesnt her sex crazed MEN pay for the protection? Dont they have a responsibility?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You might try listening to what she said before accepting a totally false summary of it from a person who has apologized. What you are ranting about is not what she said in any respect. She was never talking about herself and sex wasn't involved in the testimony. Start with learning what was actually said.

Or, never mind the facts, "I can imagine this situation in which this Leftist... " and continue with as extreme a story as you can invent and that is truth? The truth doesn't matter. Only my issue matters. It isn't that you are wrong on the issue, it is a silly way to present your argument. Mom, wouldn't be proud.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

She rather ask the government to make someone else pay for it than to ask her partner(s). That's why. Of course, that assumes her bullshit story about not being able to afford it herself has even a shred of truth to it.

Why would he have any responsibility when she doesn't even think she has responsibility. Ask the neighbors; they're the ones with responsibility. The Federal Government says so.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Why are you still arguing that it costs the church, which you do not care about, when there hasn't been one compliant from the insurance companies about absorbing the cost? As I previously explained to you, it saves the insurance company money, so they are happy to include it. Sure they were happier having some people pay extra for something that saved them money. But when it came down to having fewer of their insured using contraception, they generously agreed to providing it free,

So, what this really boils down to is having big government interfering with women's health care by giving their bosses the power to withhold their healthcare as a hostage for dare I say, "sex"?

What we are actually talking about is an employer's right to rape. (You would agree that extorted sex is rape, right?) Now I can see why you are so concerned. It would remove another level of control over women. "Hey, honey, either you come through for me or I cut off your cancer screening and your other women's preventative heath treatments." Who was that slave owner, Simon of Legree? You are in such good company on this one.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 2 years ago

What is next? Pay for her cell phone bills? You people are just plain LAZY whiners.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

She does not have a right to go to law school. If she doesn't want to Georgetown she can go somewhere else. Stop pushing your beliefs on the res of us. You want everybody to kowtow to your way and have the rest of us pay for it. Your bullying thuggish behaviour won't fly. I

Get off the computer and get to work.Do you even have a job?

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Did you read a syllable of the testimony. Or did you simply not understand it, as usual.

Racist, misogynist shit for brains troll. Drop dead face down in your own bile.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

nice civility.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

More than you deserve.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You are a bully and I will stand up to you and all of your invectives. You want to take peope's liberties away. Take your jack booted attitude away because we who believe in freedom will confront you.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Go away and die, shithead.

You wouldn't know what liberty means if if bit you on the ass. You simply think it means you have the right to be a completely selfish fuck, taking everything and giving nothing, while you live is a society that supports you and has given you every opportunity and right and privilege you enjoy. you take a three year old's temper tantrum about having to share his a toy and turn it into an entire political creed. You are and ungrateful, spoiled, selfish PIG, an out and out racist and misogynist, and you should drop dead.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I having the temper tantrum??? Now that's funny.

Here comes the bully trying to put other people down. Couldn't hack in life??? What are you, a small man that you have such a need for power and bullying?

Get off the couch and get to work. And try doing something for a change instead of bullying everybody else. Get out of our lives and take your ridiculous tyrannical government with it.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Absolutely. Schools have a right to stand for different things. Students have every right to evaluate what a school stands for and then apply or not apply as they see fit. But not anymore, not in this country. Government says so and liberals support suffocating yet more of our freedom.

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Yeah, I know. She has some friends with incredibly weak self-images and that are stupid enough to blow off buying a simple treatment for a cyst. Sure, someone just melts when they're told something isn't in a health plan? Who the fuck is she talking about? LOL. She doesn't need birth control pills, she needs a therapist to build a stronger self-image. Maybe that's covered. And cyst girl, again zero credibility. Did she keep her data plan, but skip the pills? Highly likely and you know it.

This is just weepy left-wing helpless nonsense. And she is too looking for general birth control coverage to be forced on an institution that doesn't want to provide it, for any purpose. She wants subsidized fucking. Since it's her doing the talking, subsidized fucking must be pretty important to her.

Government has no business making mandates.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's right asswipe, people need insurance. And many can't afford their meds without it. And your fucked up theorizing about whether they "kept their data plan" is just blowing shit out of your ass, fact-free as always. And guess what, they will be able to get it now. So you might as well just shut the fuck up about it. You lose. (Actually, everybody wins, but you're too stupid to understand that. Its a miracle you right wing shit-for-brain trolls can even tie you shoes in the morning.).

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Then they can't afford insurance, you stupid fuck!

It's about priorities and personal responsibility. No, it isn't about "blowing shit out of my ass", it's about deciding if you can take what belongs to your neighbor before you make even the simplest of choices on your own. And, yes, it would be interesting to go through this women's spending to see how many items rank ahead of her assuming even small responsibility for herself.

It's also about mandates. Government has no business saying what's in or out of a private health care plan. Schools have lots of differences like programs, locations, quality, class size, cost, etc. If birth control bundled in your tuition is that much of a fucking life saving as that nut claims, pick a school accordingly. She has a huge array of choices.

I'm fine tying my shoes. What's amazing is that you dependent-class slugs haven't designed a federal program to make your neighbor tie yours.

Maybe add Kleenex and Huggies to the plan. You liberals spend a lot of time crying and peeing yourself demanding that someone else fix your problems rather than just fixing them yourselves.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You libertards and right wing assholes take a three year olds tantrum about having to share a toy and turn it into your political creed.

Your world view is rests on a foundation of absolute selfishness and ingratitude.

And the fact that you compare medical needs with a Kleenex, only indicates who far you are willing to go in your maintenance of ignorance, contempt for you fellow citizens, and wholly unsupported sense of superiority over them. in service to your your greed.

Fuck you.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Flip side, how anyone could be beaten down so badly with so little survival and preservation skills as to feel they have a right to demands others, who are much more hardy and capable, to take care of their inadequacies.

NOTHING is stopping you from living an Amish lifestyle and finding out that you likely can't make it in anyone's world other than your imaginary one resembling a cross between communism and being incarcerated.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Funny, selfishness is that we should be responsible for ourselves. Generosity is demanding things from someone else before you sacrifice even something as simple as a cell phone. Greed is paying your own bills; virtue is wanting the government to take something from someone else on your behalf. Typical libard dependent-class emotion-fueled nonsense.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Unwashed, must refer to your ability to think clearly.

You sure got one muddied mind.

[-] 0 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Only men with inadequate sex lives make stupid arguments like this.

[+] -5 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Liberals have a really hard time with reason. Are the questions really that tough?

Susan Fluke thinks someone else should buy her birth control. She thinks that before she and her partner(s) pay for it, government should force someone else to pay for it instead. You seem to agree. Why?

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I already destroyed your idiotic arguments multiple times in this thread. I just wanted to point out that anyone who spouts crap like that is announcing to the entire world that he feels inadequate in bed and nothing more. Have a nice day.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Just another non-response. Your best pitch was a comparison to Viagra. But pointing out a silly subsidy as justification for another silly subsidy is a really really weak argument.

Surely, there must be a better reason than that as to why Susan Flake can't be asked to buy her own birth control. You leftists are so strident, there must be something compelling you all know, but just won't share. LOL.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Why won't you find out what she actually said? Because it might mess up the cute little narrative running around in side your head? You don't know the facts and it makes you sound even stupider than you are.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

I did. Why won't you answer the simple questions?

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Simple questions about something that never happened and now you know it and you refuse to find out the truth that you have been misrepresenting time after time after time on this thread.

If it didn't happen as you state, then what is the relevance of your question? Since it didn't, why did you base your questions on it?

If you knew it wasn't as you were representing it, why did you bother to use it as the basis of your loaded questions? It would have been to give credence to a false premise, wasn't that it? Questions based on a false premise are a waste of everyone's time and deserve no answer.

If you want to start a thread, try a good faith representation of an actual event or verifiable fact then state your position or ask a question relevant to the event or fact. I recognize that you are new in these parts or have relabeled yourself to avoid your track record. In either case, you aren't off to a good (re)start.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

She thinks birth control should be paid for by someone else. You do too. Why?

She thinks people can afford law school, healthcare insurance, and life, but can't afford birth control. That's simple bullshit. Her story is wildly exaggerated and isn't remotely credible. It's simple panhandling.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The birth control pill is used 53% of the time for non-contraceptive, medical purposes. It is a HEALTH issue.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Sure, it is. Great, then pay for it. It's kinda tough to reconcile someone clinging to life because they need birth control pills, yet choosing a school that doesn't offer them and probably keeping your cell phone which costs more. LOL. Come on, at least put a tiny bit of critical thought into it.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

When not covered by insurance, depending on the prescription, the pill can cost $1000.00 per year. And since it is a health issue, it should be covered by insurance. Getting ovarian cysts is far more costly. WHat you morons on right don't understand is that it is cheaper for YOU to pay for the pill than the consequences of it not being made available to the poorer students and workers. (And then you idiots complain about the costs of welfare or socialized medicine.)

What's more, your argument is totally dishonest. Would you object less r more if the pill cost $10,000.00 per year, instead of less than a cell phone? The cost is prohibitive now, not to the wealthier students, but the poorer ones. It is class warfare.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

But it doesn't cost that. It can, but typically doesn't. Because of socialism, I need to worry more about her and her cyst than she does? We've now slid that far? Pssst, here's a secret: It costs the same even when covered by insurance. It's just buried now in everyone's premiums. Honest to god, burying costs in schemes where we cross-subsidize each other isn't the same thing as making them go away.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Pssst, here's a secret: It's a HEALTH issue, you misogynist fuck. And yeah, you have to worry about it, because we're all in this life together. Rich and poor alike. Men and women. It's called society, you selfish prick. And if it's buried in the premiums anyway, why the fuck are you whining about it? The premium coverage for Ovarian cysts or pregnancies is thousands of times higher than it is for the pill; if the pill isn't covered, all the premiums would go UP to cover the higher costs. If the pill is covered, those premium payments can go DOWN for everyone, even assholes like you.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Sure, another leftwing smear. Yeah, it's "anti-women". See, other than that, government mandates, slathering up health insurance policies, and making a welfare state out of health insurance would be just fine. LOL.

Sure, socialism makes things cheaper. Everyone's costs go down. Lets eliminate babies and personal responsibility. We'll all be better off. LOL.

Again, you have an ovarian cyst and your neighbor has a bigger problem than you do. Bizarre. Liberalism really is a mental disorder. It would be hilarious to make that "friend" testify to get to the real story. The honest story. The story where subsidy is shown to be whining subsidy seeking nonsense.

Smarten up. The tit truly isn't free. You still have to buy the milk somehow, somewhere.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It is a women's health issue. End of story. But it's clear that you don't want people to have health care of any kind unless they are well off enough (or healthy enough) to be able to afford it.

And, by the way, fool, when the risk is spread wider, the costs come down. That's the way insurance works.

And speaking about personal responsibility, why do you not take any for all that society has given YOU? It's all take, take, take, but when asked to pitch back in, and you cry like a toddler who's been told he has to share.

You Liertardians and right wing sister-fuckers should find an island to run. Call the rest of us back when the last man is standing, after you have all cannibalized each other.

And oh, yeah, just for the record, every country with universal health care spends LESS than we do, for BETTER outcomes. So you've got that ass-backwards as well.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

No, kid, my best point was related to abortion. And by extension teen pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbirth, etc, etc.

Seriously, grow the fuck up already.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Oh, so we've socialized the shit out of things so extensively now, that we all have more of a stake in Susan getting knocked up than does Susan and her partner(s)? That point?

Funny how the "grow up" wants subsidy and thinks neighbors are more deserving of paying a bill than you are. Yes, grow up, learn something about personal responsibility.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You wouldn't know personal responsibility if it crawled up your ass and detonated. If you were a husband or a father with REAL responsibilities you wouldn't be saying stupid shit like this. Every single heterosexual man who enjoys a healthy sex life with his woman has only one thing to say on this issue: "whatever she says." The fact that you don't get that simply proves how disconnected from the mainstream your ideology really is. You want to wage a battle of the sexes? Be my guest, he-man.

hahahaha

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Your argument is completely devoid of reason and logic. Nothing you are saying here is principled or logical.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Oh for crying out loud. One last time, children. Women's health is more complicated and expensive than yours. Poor women and minors often struggle to afford birth control. Whether you choose to believe that or not is utterly irrelevant. Providing low-cost or free birth control has been proven, conclusively, to lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and reduce the instances of out-of-wedlock childbirths.

Just because you don't like it that some people are capable of enjoying sex even if they're poor or seventeen doesn't mean anything. Yes, birth control is useful to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but it's also useful for other medical purposes and the proven benefits to society as a whole outweigh any puritanical or libertarian "principle" you wish to apply. That's why you're paying a fraction of all kinds of things, from fighting the cholesterol of a chronic over-eater to replacing the liver of an alcoholic.

Apply your "principle" fairly. Go after all the money spent on obesity-related treatments because those people just sat around eating junk food all day. Go after substance-abuse programs because those people are just a bunch of worthless bums. Go after the prison system because why should you have to pay for someone to live free of charge as a punishment for committing a crime? Bring back slavery!

No, I'm sure you think sex is a special case. You don't mind it if people made some mistakes, but sex? No way! No sir! All those other things are just men being men. But women having sex? Egad! What a bunch of pussies. I'm done.

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Another non-response and non-answer as to why Susan Flake's neighbors should buy her birth control before she buys herself birth control.

Have you been able to find anyone stopping Susan from buying birth control? Didn't think so.

[-] 2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yes! the system is and the Republicans are trying to stop her! It's a conspiracy! Baa-aaaah!

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This isn't about Susan FlUke, you idiot. Girls as young as 13 and 14 take birth control for medical reasons. You keep asking the same idiotic question that has dozens of legitimate answers and all you wind up doing is proving that 1) you're a conservatroll, 2) you have no sex life, and 3) you have no brains. If we could harness the energy expended by libertarian shit-for-brains trying to justify their "principles," we would already be off the oil standard.

I'll grant you this, though, chuckles. You're straight out of Central Casting. You really know how to bring the stoopid. LOL

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

I know people take them for a number of reasons. But there are some basics bedwetting leftists like you can't seem to understand: 1) Government makes nothing free, it just takes and gives; 2) Mandates are a reason for healthcare insurance inflation. Stripped down policies are illegal and government just keeps adding mandates which worsens affordability; 3) Running birth control costs through insurance companies makes nothing cheaper. Buried things aren't the same as vanished things. Smarten up.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Oh for crying out loud. One last time, children. Women's health is more complicated and expensive than yours. Poor women and minors often struggle to afford birth control. Whether you choose to believe that or not is utterly irrelevant. Providing low-cost or free birth control has been proven, conclusively, to lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and reduce the instances of out-of-wedlock childbirths.

Just because you don't like it that some people are capable of enjoying sex even if they're poor or seventeen doesn't mean anything. Yes, birth control is useful to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but it's also useful for other medical purposes and the proven benefits to society as a whole outweigh any puritanical or libertarian "principle" you wish to apply. That's why you're paying a fraction of all kinds of things, from fighting the cholesterol of a chronic over-eater to replacing the liver of an alcoholic.

Apply your "principle" fairly. Go after all the money spent on obesity-related treatments because those people just sat around eating junk food all day. Go after substance-abuse programs because those people are just a bunch of worthless bums. Go after the prison system because why should you have to pay for someone to live free of charge as a punishment for committing a crime? Bring back slavery!

No, I'm sure you think sex is a special case. You don't mind it if people made some mistakes, but sex? No way! No sir! All those other things are just men being men. But women having sex? Egad! What a bunch of pussies. I'm done.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Making an insurance company pay for it doesn't make it cheaper. It's pretend cheaper for people that aren't very smart.

Sandra is full of shit and wildly exaggerates the birth control issue for political reasons. She's a good girl and her leftist friends can be proud of her.

Government has no business mandating what's in or out of a private healthcare policy. The mandates keep building and the cost and politicization of healthcare grow along with them.

She has no case for not buying her own healthcare.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Paying for cholesterol drugs doesn't make it cheaper either. Don't see you freaking out about that. Nope, just this one narrow wedge issue in hopes of driving the conversation further to the right and making a "religious compromise" seem reasonable. It's not. You're wrong. You're a shill. Keep talking to yourself if you like. Buh bye.

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

No, it doesn't. Maybe you're learning, but I doubt it. You're a leftist that believes in magic. But it isn't magic. All the feel good stuff government mandates into policies, is, get ready, in policies AND their costs.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

My God!

Are you still trying to beat that dead horse?

It's not going to move you know.

That's what is meant by dead. Unmoving, but perhaps that's why you should try carrying it instead of beating it.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Wow, and you still can't come up with a good reason why she shouldn't pay for it herself?

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No your not retarded.

Your Brain Dead!

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Just relax, dude. We all live in a free ride society, we all get free lunches and free rides all the time, we should just share the wealth:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320872575_the_free_ride_society.html

So, in other words, free birth control for everyone!

[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

We are missing the point about Sandra Fluke in all the made up controversy over someone's sex life. What is the real issue here? Apparently some friend of hers lost an ovary because the pill isn't covered under the Georgetown insurance policy. If you need the pill, go buy it yourself.

We don't know enough the facts. Why didn't this young woman take her prescription and pay for a $15 to $20 a month drug out of pocket? Did she simply feel good and ignore the doctor's advice? Did Georgetown tuition leave her without any money at all?

The woman may have had many choices and for some unknown reason decided she didn't want to pay for her own inexpensive medication. If you want me to get all upset over some anecdote, then give me the full story. Did she have a cell phone, stop off once a week for a drink in a bar, smoke, go to a coffee shop a couple times a week. What little things did she spend money on that could have been stopped to pay for her own medication?

[-] -3 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Fcuk her ovary. I don't care if her other one rots.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Now now don't be nasty. Everyone gets to have an opinion. I just would prefer to keep the debate centered on the actual issue.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Tell me what that issue is in case I fail to understand it.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I can only give you my opinion of what I think the real issue is. It's the Catholic Church's right to freely exercise their religion. Fluke wants to shift the debate with a sob story to a person's right to get free things.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Well that's been my take on it and from the beginning, I've thought if anyone shall be exempted from such a ludicrous and very overstepping mandate from the more fascist acting and unconstitutional DC group, religious freedom should apply to all who want to decide their religion and such a directive conflict, even devil worshipers or atheists.

It's plain ridiculous.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Absolutely. Truly, we aren't as helpless at Fluke and the Left would have us believe. Truly, the day when things like this are more someone else's problem then your own, we're fucked and our freedom is gone.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Fluke wants to shift the debate with a tearful story about a poor young woman emotionally scarred by evil old men. It's about the employer's right to worship as he pleases. A right guaranteed by the first amendment.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

And about Flake's responsibility to pay for her own love life. They should've asked if she has an I-phone at the hearing. LOL.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Flakes is a registered trademark of FLAKESnews inc.

Your misuse of the term has been sent to the legal department.

You must prove you watch at least 6hrs a day of FLAKESnews, in order to use this term.

Do you qualify?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

comes on is that you Mr. gates?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Who is Mr Gates?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not Bill, (please Mr. Gates don't hurt me, that's not irrational that's just sensible, you can pissoff Putin, but don't pissoff Bill Gates), he's just a troll on here runs different IDs I would imigine and he was on when this was posted, he was going to “chase me off here” last I’ve heard from him really, I was just having fun with the troll. Have a great day!

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Who said anything about chasing you anywhere? I use my real name for a reason. You can't even support the movement with your real name and you call me a troll? lol, not only are you paranoid but you're a paranoid and scared idiot.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You don't read the stuff your bot writes?

hmmm well I won't be giving this troll another bump so say what you like, I'm always here, see you around.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

lol, tis been tried before and I'm sure you won't be the last. Can't wait till you and the other fake supporters make the front page, spend enough time here and it's inevitable.

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Nope, I'm just looking for one of the leftist moonbats to answer some simple questions. It should be easy for them.

[-] 1 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Only a simpleton can aswer a simple question from a Rabid Righty. There is no answer, cause you aint looking for one.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You mean the question as to whether or not you're a RW lunatic internet troll? The only reason I stopped by was to tell you that we already know the answer to that question. Ta!

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Fail. I know thinking and reason isn't what your side is about, but take a shot. Try to sensibly answer the questions. Why is paying for Sanda Fluke's sex life worthy of federal mandate? Is someone stopping her from buying birth control? Who? What else should people be forced to buy Sandra Fluke?

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Because we pay for viagra under the same policies. When you get your panties in a bunch over paying for Bob Dole's erection, I might start to care about what the lunatic fringe thinks about birth control. But probably not. ;-)

[-] 0 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

That should be dropped as well. Justifying an idiotic subsidy for Sandra Fluke using an example of something else idiotic we do is a really really weak argument, but no doubt, about the best you can do.

[+] -6 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

That too should be dropped. But at least that's a medical condition.

Justifying the idiocy of Fluke's welfare claim by comparing it to some other excess remains a weak argument.

[-] 3 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Right, and ovarian cysts are just God's punishment for promiscuity. Nothing "medical" about it at all.

Grow up.

[+] -6 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Smarten up. Ovarian cysts are serious. If I had one, I'd probably make sure I prioritized dealing with it, even if it meant something as serious as giving up the data plan on my cellphone. LOL.

We already have welfare birth control. There's no reason whatsoever to expand it deeper into the middle class.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

its not welfare! its only cost coporations see you are thinking its a cost to taxpayers.. maybe .. but only through welfare given to billionaires. and you didnt read the link i sent..welfare birthcontrol is being slashed dramatically to pay for the welfare billionaires.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Sure, and that cost to employers isn't part of the compensation paid to employees. Yeah, bad companies pay for it, not the employees. That and other leftwing nonsense.

[-] 3 points by forjustice (178) from Kearney, NE 2 years ago

?..what?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

This is not an issue of who pays for contraception; all who sexually engage are capable of safely providing for self - this is an issue of religious right versus feminist right.

Who do you think will win? Who do you think should win?

Rush may be vulgar but you can understand the anger...

[-] -3 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

It's both. It's about the appropriateness of a government mandate to buy you something that you simply choose not to buy for yourself and religious freedom. How many of those crying about birth control have an I-phone? It's about a philosophy of prioritizing taking from your neighbor before you'll come up with it yourself.

The trend is towards socialism. Many just can't comprehend that the cross-subsidy model makes nothing cheaper, but it does put government in control. Making me pay my neighbor's bills and then making him pay mine makes nothing cheaper.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Of course not, it merely drives up the insurance costs. And when we consider that insurance already pays far too little it's ridiculous.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

SFB it's not about having a sex life. Go suck on Rush's ball's they are hurting right now I would imagine, after having lost four advertisers yesterday. Maybe he will hire you on as a personal ass-is-tant.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Another non-response by a liberal unable to reason.

Her neighbors should pay for her sex life before she should drop her I-phone and pay for it herself, why exactly?

Her hand is out. The left will use government force to fill it with what it takes from someone else. It's amazing just how low leftists are willing to set the bar, the same leftists that squawk about freedom.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No one is telling you that you must have sex, but around 98% of the people like it so much they consider it a human right. Sorry if you don't.

Medical insurance covers things like viagra and birth control.

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

And at someone else's expense, apparently. It important, but not quite important enough where you're willing to pay for it yourself.

Government has no business mandating what's in an insurance policy.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

they have no business madanting drug testing either but they do

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

In what regard? For operating a train or something?

But again, seeing something you think is an abuse of power is a really really weak argument for another abuse of power.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

as part of reagans war on drugs.. in the 80's federal law was passed that all employers must drug test employees. all jobs..regardless of the task involved.. from walmart cashier to bank employees all jobs. what you never had to take a drug test to get a job? just pointing out.. you should be protestin all gov intrusion.. not picking and choosing particular concerns

[-] -2 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Sorry, you need to get up-to-date.

Justifying this intrusion by citing other intrusions remains a really really weak argument.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Government has no business mandating what's in an insurance policy.'

The Supremos are going to decide on that. As of now that's the law. A National Health Service, fully funded of course would be best.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What did you not understand the 1st time SFB ?

It is not about having sex, it is about health issues.

[+] -5 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

It's about subsidy, government control, and even the slightest expectation of personal responsibility. Before banging on your neighbor's door for his/her money, you should use your own. Radical, I know.

But great, it's about health issues. So, make some adjustments, take your health seriously, and pay for it yourself. Is your health supposed to be more someone else's problem than your problem? I'm supposed to worry more about Flake getting pregnant than Flake, her partner, or even her parents? How fucked up is that? I know, you have no idea. Her story about not being able to afford it is complete horseshit.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Just relax, dude. We all live in a free ride society, we all get free lunches and free rides all the time, we should just share the wealth:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320872575_the_free_ride_society.html

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

No, you mean share someone else's wealth.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, no.

The right-wingers often tend to look at taxes as a way of stealing the fruits of other people´s labor, that people are being taxed so that other can enjoy a free ride. Well they´re way off. First of all, the ones who are really stealing the fruits of our labor are the financial elite who have been making billions by pushing a few buttons on a computer at the stock exchange and exploiting people in the US and all over the world. And secondly, the "fruits" of one´s labor can´t be measured in an advanced moderen society.

We now live in a complex, highly advanced technological society built up by generations of people thru hundreds of years. People have been building infrastructure, contributed to science, developed technology, developed efficient ways of manufacturing etc etc. Because of all this effort we now enjoy a more wealthy, advanced and efficient society than ever. All of this, lots of it built and created long before we were even born, we´re now enjoying despite having little or nothing to do with contributing to it ourselves. In other words, our contributions, no matter what we do, are microscopic compared to what we receive from society. We´re enjoying the results of generations of people`s work gradually building a modern society - an enormous free ride.

Now, there are people, certainly in third world countries, but also in the West, who are struggling to get by and do not feel that they´re enjoying all these goods. I totally understand that but that has to do with the unfortunate concentration of wealth. I`m talking about the society as a whole. The western countries are more efficient and wealthy as ever, the problem is that we have a system that allows for more and more accumulation of wealth. That is one of the reasons why we have to abolish Capitalism and replace it with democracy.

Now, what´s really interesting about this "free ride" - debate is that even though the rich, which the right-wing tend to support, are becoming increasingly wealthy by doing less, the right always turn to the poor and working class when they want to give a speech about getting free rides and stealing the friuts of other people´s labor. Citibank first recieved their taxpayer bailout back in the 80s from Reagan and have since that, along with an increasing number of other corporations received an enormous sum of taxmoney. Is that not stealing the fruits of other people´s labor? And what about, let´s say, indonesian facory girls working 12 hours a day for 50 cents an hour at a Nike- factory so that Phil Knight and the rest of them can sell shoes and equipment for huge profits. Is that not getting a free ride?? Why isn´t this theft adressed by the right-wing? The rich, which have become rich mostly by pushing a few buttons at a computer at Wall Street, and/or exploiting workers in the US and all over the world, which isn`t exactly hard work, are being given more and more tax breaks and benefits by politicians, yet the right wing have the balls to criticize sick people for getting their medical bills covered by the government. To put it this way, as long as the wealthy are getting more and more recourses into their hands by doing very little, people should have no right lecturing the working class and poor for asking for welfare programs.

So how should we organize a complex highly advanced wealthy society? Make it more democratic! Make the workplaces democratic, make the communities democratic. Organize society so that people can be in control over their own lives. Create a society where we focus on peoples needs instead of short term profit. End the system we have today, which encourages greed and unsustainable and pointless consumption, and instead create a society where true human characteristics and feelings like engagement and solidarity will come to the fore. Create a decent civilized society where everyone can enjoy a decent life. Create a world where we all can enjoy the "Free Ride" Society.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Even lengthly rationalizations are still rationalizations. What you're suggesting as a replacement for capitalism isn't democracy, it's socialism or worse. Sure, "democracy" in terms of simply voting to take away other people's things and to drive them out of this society to create somewhere else? I'll give you that. LOL.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What I want is libertarian socialism, which is the same as real democracy: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

"Sure, "democracy" in terms of simply voting to take away other people's"

Again, we live in ahighly advanced technological society built up by generations of people thru hundreds of years. People have been building infrastructure, contributed to science, developed technology, developed efficient ways of manufacturing etc etc. Because of all this effort we now enjoy a more wealthy, advanced and efficient society than ever. All of this, lots of it built and created long before we were even born, we´re now enjoying despite having little or nothing to do with contributing to it ourselves. In other words, our contributions, no matter what we do, are microscopic compared to what we receive from society

And also, Current property rights are not graven in in stone, they can be changed just like they were, a certain time ago, changed into the ones we have today. Just like the wealthy business owners have been given the right to own the means of productions others are using and profiting on someone else´s labor, workers can be given the right to instead control their own work and workplace. Property rights are not unchangable and come in different variations, and it has to be the public who have to live by these laws that should get to decide these. In other words, democracy

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

What I want is a running head start on leaving the country if loons like you were to ever run things. It would be a sad day, but when ships sink, abandoning ship comes next, even if the ship's sinking is due to sabotage. I can't imagine a producer that would stay for that. Sure, takers, I get that part, but not for producers.

[-] 2 points by lgarz (287) from New York, NY 2 years ago

What did you or any other Republican ever produce?

And, what Country are you going to go to after November? China? It's the new land of opportunity.

How about the Caymen Islands? You can visit Mitten's money there, but you have to take a Bath to get in!

How about Canada? Nope they have socialized medicine there? Where are you going to go???

I know, Somalia it's about the only place in the world with a Small Government, go there, you can be a Pirate, and start your own little Workers paradise!!

Make sure you take your Sunblock! It's hot as hell there! Ask Bin Laden. Good thing though you don't have to bathe!

[-] -1 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

If you were ever successful, lots of places would look better than this.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

This always happens. I present arguments for the ultra-rightwingers claiming they´re wrong. In return I get, no reasonable counter arguments, but just ridicule and namecalling. It´s like it´s a law of nature.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Just saying, your just take it model has some problems. One, creators will see it coming and limit their losses by leaving. Two, it's a one shot deal. You'll live off the loot with no one around to create more. It ends badly.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

That´s one of the many reasons why its too risky leaving power and resourses in the hands of private tyrannies who only think of short term profits. We need a free just democratic society in which we are in control of our own lives: http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-must-be-replaced-by-real-democracy-libe/

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So what your so poorly trying to communicate is that all insurance should be dropped. That the insurance industry should be shut down because it is unnecessary.

RIGHT?

[+] -5 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Nope, not at all. But government should stop the mandates. They've got no business mandating coverage of anything. They can be there to support disclosure of what's covered and other terms and to provide force of law in terms of the contract, but they have no business mandating coverage.

Government does this because leftists like you have poor math skills. Dopes like you must think it's magic. Yes, make the insurance company pay, why it become free! Well, it doesn't become free. Government has the power to give and take, but not to make things free.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

SFB - it is the lack of proper regulations and failure of enforcement of existing ones that has gotten us here in this fucking criminal economic meltdown in the 1st place.

[+] -5 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

LOL. More leftist propaganda and another non-response. You just can't stay with reasoning.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No you are "deliberately" incapable of proper ( rational ) reasoning - troll.

[+] -5 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Another non-response and then the sign of frustration at not being able to reason: the "troll" flag.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No you have to wear the shoe if it fits you, and the troll shoe fits you, own it. You need not deny it as others can see it in your posts and comments.

So wag your tail proudly as everyone can already see it.

[-] -3 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Lol you're pathetic. You have no argument to his statements except to call names. One might say you're the troll here. Don't worry,your life may get batter after you get out of high school.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I believe you are confused. That is obvious to all who read your comments.

Now go cuddle with your troll buddy and offer to comfort each-other in the fact that you can't have everything your own way.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Another non-response.

Government can take and give, but it can't make things free. Maybe tape that to your refrigerator until it sinks in.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Un - No one is looking for free.

Unless it is you wishing to take free shots without having to face a rebuttal.

[+] -4 points by Unwashed (-141) 2 years ago

Susan is and liberals support her. Of course, liberals can't comprehend that. They think they're just getting "fairness" or "coverage", but in reality-land, they're looking for something paid for by someone else. It's that reason thing again.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (26178) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Just keep telling your self that. You will likely come to believe it. Propaganda starts out as recognizable shit. But if repeated enough with enough variety, well then some times it begins to be accepted. Problem is, if you are the one pushing it you are likely the 1st to become deceived.