Ms Fluke is far from a "innocent bystander" in this. The usual suspects on this board have made this "controversy" about Rush, when it is and should be about the left that LOVE to use OPM-Other People's Money.

Ms Fluke is far from a "innocent bystander" in this. The usual suspects on this board have made this "controversy" about Rush, when it is and should be about the left that LOVE to use OPM-Other People's Money.

 

I started the thread because of the comments he made. So THAT is what the thread should be about.

 

The debate about the contraception issue is valid and fair.

I started the thread because of the comments he made. So THAT is what the thread should be about.

 

The debate about the contraception issue is valid and fair.

Thanks for your help, Clyde. Agreed. Not discounting your thread topic, it all ties together. My "usual suspects" comment is due to many folks on here are WAY too worried about things that do not matter. Rush's comments were him illustrating absurdity while being absurd. He should not have apologized in my opinion. She put herself out there as a tool of the left, just as she intended and wanted. Again, she is not an innocent bystander. I still can't find anyone that can explain why someone other than Ms Fluke should pay for her contraceptives/birth control?

I still can't find anyone that can explain why someone other than Ms Fluke should pay for her contraceptives/birth control?

 

It's like any other issue with insurance. Why should I pay for pain medication for someone else's sports injury? Why should I pay for medication that results from anyone else's decisions?

 

Because I'm not. I'm paying for coverage for the things I need and are the results of what I choose to do in my life.

It's like any other issue with insurance. Why should I pay for pain medication for someone else's sports injury? Why should I pay for medication that results from anyone else's decisions?

 

Because I'm not. I'm paying for coverage for the things I need and are the results of what I choose to do in my life.

Good point on the insurance issue.

But why MANDATE that insurance companies have to pay for them? If you want coverage that pays for certain things then buy coverage that paysfor those things. If your employers coverage doesn't cover what you want covered then find a job that does offer that coverage, or here's a novel idea buy your own coverage for it.

But why MANDATE that insurance companies have to pay for them? If you want coverage that pays for certain things then buy coverage that paysfor those things. If your employers coverage doesn't cover what you want covered then find a job that does offer that coverage, or here's a novel idea buy your own coverage for it.

 

Personally, (and some may choose not to believe it) this is an issue that I've not come to a final decision on. I fully respect the official Catholic policy on contraception (and how it ties in with abortion is really the important part for me) and have problems feeling comfortable supporting mandating that Catholic institutions provide insurance plans that cover contraception, but on the other hand, I feel that those that use oral contraceptives for non-contraceptive, medicinal purposes should have that covered. Additionally, I worry that exempting Catholic institutions could lead to a slippery slope with related issues. It's certainly not clear in my head as to what is the right thing to do.

Again, if it's important enough to you that you feel that you should have those things covered then work for someone else. I also understand that OCPs can be used for conditions other then birth control BUT there are other medications that take care of medical conditions that are not covered by insurance. Why are birth control pills so special that they should have protected status? I would still be interested to know exactly what the cost would be to a woman who goes to Planned Parenthood for her pills. I know it can't be much because (at least 15 years ago) that's where college girls went when they wanted pills but didn't want to use their parents insurance to pay for them.

RTS, I'm sure that you understand that I have no desire to watch this video, but I do have a question. Were these female democratic leaders ones that denounced Rush, but then refused to denouce Maher?

 

Also, I really don't think that Rush is helping the conservative movement in this situation. By calling women that use oral contraceptives ****s, all he is doing is driving moderate and independent women to the left. Maybe that's his goal, though.

Yes they did and yes they refused.

 

Rush, in my opinion, has never helped the conservative movement. He's done very nicely at helping to give it a bad name, though.

Yes they did and yes they refused.

 

Then I can't see a scenario in which they are not hypocrites. I don't see what someone would lose by simply saying that in no circumstances does someone deserve to be called those names.

 

Again, if you'd help me NOT watch the video...who were the lawmakers?

...BUT there are other medications that take care of medical conditions that are not covered by insurance.

 

Which ones? (I don't doubt you, just curious.)

Ironically, the person making the most noise complaining about Rush losing sponsors is Bill Maher. He says Rush has a right to say what he wants and people should not pressure sponsors.

My insurance plan has a formulary of medications in which medications are listed that will and won't be paid for and in varying degrees. Just because a medication has a legitimate medical function does not mean that it is covered by insurance. If the pseudefed prescription bill would have passed it is highly unlikely that insurance companies would pay for that. What many people don't realize is that when you fill a prescription at a pharmacy there is a fee for the pharmisist to fill the scrip. Had the pseudefed bill passed then people would most likely have had to not only pay for the cost of the medication, they would have also had to pay for the fee for the pharmisist to fill it.

My insurance plan has a formulary of medications in which medications are listed that will and won't be paid for and in varying degrees. Just because a medication has a legitimate medical function does not mean that it is covered by insurance. If the pseudefed prescription bill would have passed it is highly unlikely that insurance companies would pay for that. What many people don't realize is that when you fill a prescription at a pharmacy there is a fee for the pharmisist to fill the scrip. Had the pseudefed bill passed then people would most likely have had to not only pay for the cost of the medication, they would have also had to pay for the fee for the pharmisist to fill it.

 

I think that I see what you are saying now. Most insurance policies allow for medication to treat an illness, but it may not pay for a costly medicine if a less expensive one is available and effective.

Then I can't see a scenario in which they are not hypocrites. I don't see what someone would lose by simply saying that in no circumstances does someone deserve to be called those names.

 

Again, if you'd help me NOT watch the video...who were the lawmakers?

I agree, I don't understand why people from both sides can't see it that way when things like this get said.

 

The lawmakers were Sheila Jackson Lee and Jan Schakowsky.