Rush Limbaugh has finally jumped the shark - advertisers abandoning him

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Then she has an agenda and I want to know who is pulling her strings.

Wake up to the propaganda and diversionary tactics of the enemy. She is not on our side.

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

Does Riot have a daughter?

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/sandra-flu...alth-insurance

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital; guess that's why Mitt Romney issued a "non-denouncing denouncement" of Rush.


Ocala Mike

He left Bain early in 1999.. There are more important things to worry about than Rush's comments. Good job Mitt!

Hey OM how much did you pay to fill up your gas tank?

$4.69/gal here

Just think how many contraceptives Fluke's Friends could buy with gas in the $2/gal range

justsayin

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I think it's all about choice.

Ms. Fluke and all women certainly should have the choice to receive contraception.

But religion and specifically the Catholic church should be allowed the choice to stay away from providing something that goes against church doctrine and again if we are to believe Obama & Co., the cost of omitting coverage would result in paying a higher premium.

Should Ms. Fluke & Co. want/need contraceptive coverage while in college they should avoid schools like Georgetown, Marquette, Loyola and Notre Dame or perhaps a private charity could step in and provide supplemental coverage. Then again there's the old fashion way of providing for yourself but that's a dying phenomena.

BTW there is a hint of truth in 'Catholic girls start much too late'.

Disclaimer: If at anytime viagra is covered in a group policy bc pills certainly should as well.

it is, has been since day one.
again, if you open the door to religious reasons to opt out of certain coverages, the amount of items being excluded would rise tremendously. or do you keep ignoring that.
also, again, the church already has yielded the point in many states with this same argument.
men get sex pills paid for, women don't. are their medical reasons for viagra other than sex? not that i know of. the pill? yes, many.
yet insurers cover tubals and vasectomies. so, permanent sterility? ok... flexible sterility? tough luck.
you guys keep saying the issue is personal responsibility, but its not. the issue is there is a double standard.

Originally Posted by geeker2

Hey OM how much did you pay to fill up your gas tank?

$4.69/gal here

Around $3.80 down here. Not sure how this fits into this thread, though.
Is Mitt running on the $2/gal. gas platform?


Ocala Mike

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you open the door to religious reasons to opt out of certain coverages, the amount of items being excluded would rise tremendously. or do you keep ignoring that..

This is not about opting out for cost savings, punishment, bias towards women etc. This is about Church doctrine.

You keep thinking this will be abused by opting out of say arthritis coverage etc. It isn't and until we cross that road its reality is only in people's minds.

Again, you keep ignoring that if Obama is right, a policy for a woman with no contraceptive coverage should be MORE EXPENSIVE than coverage with contraception. So you can eliminate cost as a motive.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Did you even read her testimony? She didn't even talk about herself once. For all anyone knows, she could be a virgin. Your last sentence is painfully ignorant.

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

you're probably a really nice guy but might suffer from same tone deafness rush does.

it's creepy that you'd even ask.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

Who makes final determination of virginity?....I'd appoint my Dr Hassan bin Lade....

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, you're a horseplayer, right? What odds will you give me on the "virgin" bet?

she's 30's old. Odds are she is not a virgin. But the point is, you said "It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle" when if you actually read this Fluke testimony she never even talked about herself or her lifestyle. She was talking about others and specifically women who had conditions (cysts) that need to be controlled through birth control pills.

So I wanted to make sure your incorrect statement was corrected. Certainly, nobody outside of Fluke and her friends / lovers know if she is a "slut" "prostitute" or a virgin or living in a monogomous relationship.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

This is not about opting out for cost savings, punishment, bias towards women etc. This is about Church doctrine.

You keep thinking this will be abused by opting out of say arthritis coverage etc. It isn't and until we cross that road its reality is only in people's minds.

Again, you keep ignoring that if Obama is right, a policy for a woman with no contraceptive coverage should be MORE EXPENSIVE than coverage with contraception. So you can eliminate cost as a motive.

the church should have Nothing to do with insurance coverage. But than again, in my opinion, the government should also have nothing to do with insurance coverage.

It's pretty ridiculous if a company does not cover medicine that prevents ovarian cysts. But on the other side of it.. healthy women who want to avoid pregnancy should be able to afford the $10 to $30 dollars per month it costs to get bitch control pills. If your current insurance doesn't cover it.. either switch plans or pay for it out of your pocket. what i DO NOT want, is government in the health care business.

I have sympathy for the women who need the pills for health reasons. I don't have sympathy for the other group for a reason. I take a medication that literally keeps me alive. I'd dehydrate and die of kidney failure in a matter of weeks without this medication. I work and have insurance through my company. But, according to United Healthcare (they suck, btw), this medication I take is not considered preventative. Eventhough it prevents my death. So I pay full price for this medication every month, eventhough I'm still paying my insurance premiums which includes a ridiculous $2,400 deductable anyway.

Oh yeah.. before Obamacare completely changed the insurance policies that we are offered to pay for.. I simply paid a $10 deductable for this medication every month. Now it costs 5 times that.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

But on the other side of it.. healthy women who want to avoid pregnancy should be able to afford the $10 to $30 dollars per month it costs to get bitch control pills.

I believe this is considered a "freudian slip" meant birth control pills!

bitch control pills are already covered. They are called prozac and valium.

[GenuineRisk]

Seems to me religious freedom means the INDIVIDUAL choosing not to use contraception, not the boss dictating whether they should. Health care coverage is not a gift; it's part of an employee's compensation. By restricting health care coverage to not include contraception, the Catholic Church is demanding the right to pay their employees less.

If the Catholic Church feels so strongly about not providing health plans that include contraception coverage, they can just not offer health care plans as part of their compensation package. And then see what caliber of people apply to work for them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If the Catholic Church feels so strongly about not providing health plans that include contraception coverage, they can just not offer health care plans as part of their compensation package. And then see what caliber of people apply to work for them.

The Catholic Church is free not to offer contraception, the insurance company will provide it. There is zero "forcing" of churches to do anything against their religious beliefs. They are ignoring that announcement in an effort to keep rousing up the religious GOP base politically.

Nearly all religious-affiliated hospitals already offer insurance - and have for decades - that routinely offers birth control.

This - like "Obama is responsible for high gasoline prices!" - is an entirely manufactured political issue.

The current polling shows only 14% of Latinos now support any Republican candidate, and 57% of all women are offended by the GOP (that obviously includes plenty of GOP women). The GOP has ignored the advice they've received over the past 20 years about changing with the country. Those are demographic numbers that cannot be overcome. We are watching the destruction of the current incarnation of the Republican Party. If the brahmins in the party don't take over control, this party is done for years.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

This is not about opting out for cost savings, punishment, bias towards women etc. This is about Church doctrine.

You keep thinking this will be abused by opting out of say arthritis coverage etc. It isn't and until we cross that road its reality is only in people's minds.

Again, you keep ignoring that if Obama is right, a policy for a woman with no contraceptive coverage should be MORE EXPENSIVE than coverage with contraception. So you can eliminate cost as a motive.

it is very much about those things. there is a double standard. the cost is higher for an ed drug than bc, yet ed is covered. as for the church argument...why do you continue to ignore the facts? those include that many states already have bc mandates in place which include churches- that the church has accepted. also, as i said before, if you start excluding based on religion you open up many folks to losing coverages for other services. ive made that point several times, yet you and others choose to ignore that. you said if viagra was paid for then nevermind..it is paid for yet you're still arguing.
of course arthritis wouldnt come up for religious reasons. what about treatment for ectopic pregnancy? blood transfusions? there are religions against that. organ donation? some are against that. you want your pastor, or your employer to decide your treatments?

[Riot]

From Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203070008

At least 45 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Rush Limbaugh's radio show in the wake of his misogynistic attacks on Sandra Fluke.

Here are his March 7 advertisers, in the order they appeared on WABC, the flagship station for Limbaugh's show. Audio clips of the ads have been provided to help make advertisers aware of the placement of their ads on the program.

Advertisers with links on their names have already stated that they have asked to have their ads excluded from Limbaugh's show.

etc ...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you're probably a really nice guy but might suffer from same tone deafness rush does.

it's creepy that you'd even ask.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Seems to me religious freedom means the INDIVIDUAL choosing not to use contraception, not the boss dictating whether they should. Health care coverage is not a gift; it's part of an employee's compensation. By restricting health care coverage to not include contraception, the Catholic Church is demanding the right to pay their employees less.

If the Catholic Church feels so strongly about not providing health plans that include contraception coverage, they can just not offer health care plans as part of their compensation package. And then see what caliber of people apply to work for them.

freedom of religion mean right to worship how, where, when you choose. not whether your employees have to believe as you do. or that you can make others follow your beliefs in some form or fashion.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the church should have Nothing to do with insurance coverage. But than again, in my opinion, the government should also have nothing to do with insurance coverage.

It's pretty ridiculous if a company does not cover medicine that prevents ovarian cysts. But on the other side of it.. healthy women who want to avoid pregnancy should be able to afford the $10 to $30 dollars per month it costs to get bitch control pills. If your current insurance doesn't cover it.. either switch plans or pay for it out of your pocket. what i DO NOT want, is government in the health care business.

I have sympathy for the women who need the pills for health reasons. I don't have sympathy for the other group for a reason. I take a medication that literally keeps me alive. I'd dehydrate and die of kidney failure in a matter of weeks without this medication. I work and have insurance through my company. But, according to United Healthcare (they suck, btw), this medication I take is not considered preventative. Eventhough it prevents my death. So I pay full price for this medication every month, eventhough I'm still paying my insurance premiums which includes a ridiculous $2,400 deductable anyway.

Oh yeah.. before Obamacare completely changed the insurance policies that we are offered to pay for.. I simply paid a $10 deductable for this medication every month. Now it costs 5 times that.

for what you wrote and for you and your struggle

[Riot]

Limbaugh in trouble - even the PSA's like the American Heart Association are refusing to be broadcast on his program.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

freedom of religion mean right to worship how, where, when you choose. not whether your employees have to believe as you do. or that you can make others follow your beliefs in some form or fashion.

Freedom from religion is a constitutional right, too.

Not that that will stop Rick Santorum.