Just read Limbaugh's comments in context

#52
#52
so OBGYN visits are also not covered?

and all this is just noise around the real debate anyway
 
#55
#55
milohimself said:
Whoops. Typo. $70/month. $250 for initial visit and $50/month from there on.

Again, I recognize that women don't have to pay that much thanks to Title X, but that's not always the case, as I cited earlier (the firm was Hart Research), and Title X doesn't exactly receive limitless funding.

Bottom line, nearly 60% of women who use the pill do so for reasons other than solely for contraception, and 14% use them solely for health reasons.

And yes, I am playing the rape card. I personally know a number of women my age who were not sexually promiscuous and took the pill specifically for that reason.

I'm moving beyond Fluke's case here, all I'm saying is that the social costs of doing things like allowing states to outlaw birth control or eliminate Title X would be far, far greater than what we spend on it, and that access to birth control for women needs to be a high priority.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about outlawing it? For Christ's sake this is exactly what Obama is doing - equating a concern about mandating it be free with the desire to ban it.

It's as bad as Limbaugh's argument.

Still ain't buying the rape thing - I don't see how that is a health issue.
 
#56
#56
milohimself said:
Because there are more than a few women out there who can't throw down $250 for a doctor's visit and $50/month.
Click to expand...

$50 is the high end - the range I saw was 15 - 50 with the difference being which ones are being prescribed.

OB/GYN visits have already been addressed as likely covered.
 
#57
#57
utvolpj said:
so OBGYN visits are also not covered?

and all this is just noise around the real debate anyway
Click to expand...
Huh?

And when the GOP tries to eliminate Title X, pushes personhood bills and state-mandated not-medically-necessary transvaginal ultrasounds, and all this other crap, they are making it the debate.

Listen, they should have had Obama on the ropes a month ago. Frankly, the birth control part was a federal overreach and the GOP could have easily made an issue out of that and that alone in a way to start locking up Pennsylvania. But I promise you, the rest of this stuff is driving people away. There's a reason when Republicans want to go all out on the social conservatism stuff, Democrats basically stand back and say "fine, bring it."
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
Who said anything about outlawing it? For Christ's sake this is exactly what Obama is doing - equating a concern about mandating it be free with the desire to ban it.

It's as bad as Limbaugh's argument.
Click to expand...
exactly what I'm railing against. It's the worst kind of demogaugery.

Somehow availability became a code word for freebie.
 
#59
#59
volinbham said:
Who said anything about outlawing it? For Christ's sake this is exactly what Obama is doing - equating a concern about mandating it be free with the desire to ban it.

It's as bad as Limbaugh's argument.

Still ain't buying the rape thing - I don't see how that is a health issue.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the Virginia personhood measure -- the way it was worded would have specifically allowed for the banishment of a number of contraceptives. Just today a state rep came out and said he'd be for adding an amendment saying it couldn't be used that way.

And I agree with you about Obama -- again, primarily because it goes back to my personal belief that health insurance shouldn't be tied to employment to begin with, because this crap is the result.

volinbham said:
$50 is the high end - the range I saw was 15 - 50 with the difference being which ones are being prescribed.

OB/GYN visits have already been addressed as likely covered.
Click to expand...
They both are with Title X. I would like to see it stay that way.
 
#60
#60
milohimself said:
Huh?

And when the GOP tries to eliminate Title X, pushes personhood bills and state-mandated not-medically-necessary transvaginal ultrasounds, and all this other crap, they are making it the debate.

Listen, they should have had Obama on the ropes a month ago. Frankly, the birth control part was a federal overreach and the GOP could have easily made an issue out of that and that alone in a way to start locking up Pennsylvania. But I promise you, the rest of this stuff is driving people away. There's a reason when Republicans want to go all out on the social conservatism stuff, Democrats basically stand back and say "fine, bring it."
Click to expand...
no the debate is not about contraception. It's about whether the govt can force a religious institution to do something against its will. Of course that morphed into the Repubs wanted women to get pregnant with rape babies but it was not the original debate. That's why the fact that this woman didn't get to speak is of no bearing. It was a side-show coordinated by Pelosi
 
#61
#61
GAVol said:
exactly what I'm railing against. It's the worst kind of demogaugery.

Somehow availability became a code word for freebie.
Click to expand...

I think the way it's set up now with Title X subsidies for those who can't afford it is the way it should be.
 
#62
#62
utvolpj said:
no the debate is not about contraception. It's about whether the govt can force a religious institution to do something against its will. Of course that morphed into the Repubs wanted women to get pregnant with rape babies but it was not the original debate. That's why the fact that this woman didn't get to speak is of no bearing. It was a side-show coordinated by Pelosi
Click to expand...

I understand, acknowledge and agree that this debate is about religious freedom -- but it is also about women's health.
 
#64
#64
utvolpj said:
and that's her responsibility, not mine
Click to expand...

Look, you get a choice, and it's very simple:

1) Subsidize family planning services to low income

or

2) Deal with society bringing on about one million unplanned babies to single mothers per year and about as many additional emergency room visits costing $1,500 a pop going unpaid for which the costs will get shifted onto your health plan
 
#65
#65
Nobody wants you to pay for her to have sex! Just that birth control be covered like any other prescription medicine. I don't know if I missed something important or if her argument is just being misrepresented among conservatives. I'd be willing to bet that there's equal chance of both.
 
#66
#66
3) people get smarter and learn what causes babies to magically appear. Also understand that with children come costs

I've stated all along that I am all for helping those at the very bottom. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that would include a Georgetown Univ law student. Want birth contro? Get a part-time job or grab a Santorum approved bottle of aspirin
 
#67
#67
VOLatile said:
Nobody wants you to pay for her to have sex! Just that birth control be covered like any other prescription medicine. I don't know if I missed something important or if her argument is just being misrepresented among conservatives. I'd be willing to bet that there's equal chance of both.
Click to expand...

no the Dems are trying to force a religious institution to provide things against their beliefs. It would be like requiring a Muslim soup kitchen to provide bacon with every meal
 
#68
#68
utvolpj said:
no the Dems are trying to force a religious institution to provide things against their beliefs. It would be like requiring a Muslim soup kitchen to provide bacon with every meal
Click to expand...

Georgetown is a religious institution? This would be what I missed, then. It all makes sense. I thought it was a non-denominational university.

But still, I don't understand how it's considered "subsidizing sex" if it's for medical purposes.
 
#69
#69
My weird Mom forced me to homeschool until Middles School, and she listened to Rush EVERY day, followed by Dr. Laura. I never had a chance at being normal.
 
#70
#70
VOLatile said:
Georgetown is a religious institution? This would be what I missed, then. It all makes sense. I thought it was a non-denominational university.
Click to expand...

yeah per their site it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic univ in the US (didn't know that)

VOLatile said:
But still, I don't understand how it's considered "subsidizing sex" if it's for medical purposes.
Click to expand...

the vast majority of BC is not used for medical purposes. It is used for recreational sex
 
#71
#71
utvolpj said:
3) people get smarter and learn what causes babies to magically appear. Also understand that with children come costs

I've stated all along that I am all for helping those at the very bottom. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that would include a Georgetown Univ law student. Want birth contro? Get a part-time job or grab a Santorum approved bottle of aspirin
Click to expand...
Again, I've moved on from Fluke's friend because I don't know what her personal situation was, BUT...

58% of women that take oral contraceptives do so for health issues and not solely for sexual purposes, and since I think you may have missed the beginning of the thread, the birth control in this situation was explicitly for the treatment of ovarian cysts (the person is question is a lesbian)
 
#72
#72
which is great but that really covers a whole lot of issues. My wife likes them because they make her cramps lighter and that could be considered a "health reason". Situation in life affects that opinion way too much

and I didn't miss what the person in question claimed but it in no way refutes my opinion. Is $83/mo (maximum) too much for a person to take care of their health? Remember this is also a person spending well over 6 figures on their law degree
 
#73
#73
utvolpj said:
yeah per their site it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic univ in the US (didn't know that)



the vast majority of BC is not used for medical purposes. It is used for recreational sex
Click to expand...

47% is not a vast majority. Those that don't take it for medical purposes SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. That's what I've been trying to say all along. It's quite ridiculous that she's been called a slut or a prostitute because she's trying to get equal provision.

Besides, getting a private university to include birth control in their health plan (along with the other drugs) is not paid for by the tax payer, is it?
 
#74
#74
VOLatile said:
47% is not a vast majority. Those that don't take it for medical purposes SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. That's what I've been trying to say all along. It's quite ridiculous that she's been called a slut or a prostitute because she's trying to get equal provision.

Besides, getting a private university to include birth control in their health plan (along with the other drugs) is not paid for by the tax payer, is it?
Click to expand...

again we have no idea how that 53% is calculated (like what I said about my wife). Also how many are going to pay up when all they have to claim is a medical issue? Not many would be my guess

does it matter if it is paid by the taxpayer? I really don't want to see govt pushing clearly unconstitutional mandates on any religious group. Even if not religious they shouldn't be telling them how to spend their money.
 
#75
#75
I can't believe that anybody could type this is about women's health with a straight face. I'd be willing to bet most birth control is on a four dollar generic list at walmart. This is about control. Govt control & controlling the political narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top