The Rush Limbaugh "Phony Fluke" Controversy

[Kiki Cannoli]

So it woiuld make sense for an insurance company to WANT to cover BC. Sop if they do, great...if they dont, such was their choice.

But tell me....why were you spending so much on BC if condoms are more realiable and much cheaper?

Why is no one asnwering that?

Jarhead you know the answer, why do you need it typed out? Because people like the wet and wild au natural.

so it is not about the health of the woman..

It is about pleasure.

Condoms are not as pleasurable....so people want to force insurance comnpanies to cover more expensive means of BC.....


Not a good enough reason.

I don't want to jump in as Rightwinger had a dialogue going with you and I hate to interrupt.

You already know that BC devices/meds are utilized in regulating other condions a woman may suffer. You are being silly.

 

[Jarhead]

So we jumped from the expense of Birth control pills, to whether it is plausible to using only condoms versus Birth control pills versus both(which will include the cost of Birth control pills) to mandates.

Can we stick to the topic of Birth control pills and their costs?

No...the topic was the cost for Birth Control...and that apparently it costs 3000 a year when yoiu include the cost of the pills, the doctor, the tests, etc.

So my question is valid.

Why not use the most reliable and cheapest form of birth contriol....condoms?

If one has sex 10 times a week it would cost 500 a year.

2500 less....why not?

And why not use both
(By the way, I doubt birth control costs $3000 a year. Please stop misrepresenting the facts. I think Fluke said that the total cost of contraceptive while in law school(which takes several years) cost almost $3000. A big difference mind you.

yeah...that was an unintentional error.

But regardless....

There is no need to use both. No one does now...and no one will in the future..

So putting yoiur diversion aside....

Why would one choose the expoense of BC pills over the reliability and cost effectiveness of condoms?

Like the woman on the hill....why doesnt she just use condoms?

 

[peach174]

If she would have given an account as to why it cost that much, maybe we would be able to believe her more. She just threw it out without anything else to back up that really high number.

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead you know the answer, why do you need it typed out? Because people like the wet and wild au natural.

so it is not about the health of the woman..

It is about pleasure.

Condoms are not as pleasurable....so people want to force insurance comnpanies to cover more expensive means of BC.....


Not a good enough reason.

I don't want to jump in as Rightwinger had a dialogue going with you and I hate to interrupt.

You already know that BC devices/meds are utilized in regulating other condions a woman may suffer. You are being silly.

if those items are utilized for reasons other than BC, they are not considered BC items when coded for insurance.

That is a fact.

The code is based on the reason for the prescription/procedure.

I can not have my insurance pay for my doctor to shave my genitals becuase I like it that way. They will deny the charge.

But if they shave it becuase I have a mole that needed to be removed, they will cover it.

I am not being silly. I am aware of how things are coded for insurance.

If one needs a hormone correction and needs to take the pill to straighten out her cycle, it is coded as such...not as BC.

 

[The T]

It isn't the GOP that brought this shit up in the first place, Obama and the Statists made this an issue.

and you played right into their hands, didn't you?

Lucy brought out the football, and Charlie Brown had to try to kick it..

Yeah, we should have just let them keep on lying that Republicans want to take their birth control and said nothing back.

BS!

Actually it is JOEY that f3ell for it. He seems to defend it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

At least our president is showing some class

Obama: Limbaugh's name calling is 'reprehensible'


President Obama today telephoned the Georgetown University law student who was called a "slut" and "prostitute" by Rush Limbaugh, who is getting hit from all sides.


CAPTIONBy AP
Obama called to express his "disappointmnent" that Sandra Fluke has been subjected to "inappropriate personal attacks," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

The president found Limbaugh's comments "reprehensible" and "crude," Carney said.

Limbaugh took fire from Republicans as well: House Speaker John Boehner said the comments are "inappropriate." Ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, a former Senate candidate, said the words were "insulting" and "incendiary." Democrats want an apology.

Ha, Limbaugh apologizes!

You guys do not know WHO Rush Limbaugh is!

What are you going to do, sue him?

Democrats make me laugh! Ha Ha Ha!

I don't expect Limbaugh to apologize, he never does it is bad for business. Calling liberal women sluts is what gets him ratings.

Looks like it's increasing....

....his paranoia....

....as well!!

Someone needs to send "...a couple hard pipe-hittin'..." lesbians, over to Porky's sty, to "...get medieval on his ass"!!!!!

 

[Jarhead]

and that young lady did not talk about health conditions...she tralked about the cost of BIRTH CONTROL.

 

[edthecynic]

Mudwhistle,

Your completely honest take on all issues is most appreciated. How do you do it? I mean....you honstly think that this woman enrolled at Georgetown BECAUSE the health plan that she would pay for did not cover contraceptives. That is incredible.

Any person who was not as honest as you would come away from that statement thinking that she enrolled there IN SPITE of that detail.

You are just too honest for us.

Either way, she enrolled full well knowing, and NOW she whines about it?

Like Georgetown is the ONLY place she could study law?

Georgetown is where she earned a scholarship! This may come as a surprised to CON$ervative know-it-alls, but there are some people who can't afford school without a scholarship!

 

[BlindBoo]

But the difference is that it is not against anyone's religion to build a car with an airbag..

Tell that to the Amish.

 

[The T]

Mudwhistle,

Your completely honest take on all issues is most appreciated. How do you do it? I mean....you honstly think that this woman enrolled at Georgetown BECAUSE the health plan that she would pay for did not cover contraceptives. That is incredible.

Any person who was not as honest as you would come away from that statement thinking that she enrolled there IN SPITE of that detail.

You are just too honest for us.

Either way, she enrolled full well knowing, and NOW she whines about it?

Like Georgetown is the ONLY place she could study law?

Georgetown is where she earned a scholarship! This may come as a surprised to CON$ervative know-it-alls, but there are some people who can't afford school without a scholarship!

But they want to force taxpayers to subsidize thier sex lives. NOT gonna happen.

Idiot.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

so it is not about the health of the woman..

It is about pleasure.

Condoms are not as pleasurable....so people want to force insurance comnpanies to cover more expensive means of BC.....


Not a good enough reason.

I don't want to jump in as Rightwinger had a dialogue going with you and I hate to interrupt.

You already know that BC devices/meds are utilized in regulating other condions a woman may suffer. You are being silly.

if those items are utilized for reasons other than BC, they are not considered BC items when coded for insurance.

That is a fact.

The code is based on the reason for the prescription/procedure.

I can not have my insurance pay for my doctor to shave my genitals becuase I like it that way. They will deny the charge.

But if they shave it becuase I have a mole that needed to be removed, they will cover it.

I am not being silly. I am aware of how things are coded for insurance.

If one needs a hormone correction and needs to take the pill to straighten out her cycle, it is coded as such...not as BC.

Agreed, so should companies be allowed to exclude such coverage because the hormone therapy could also be used for BC?

 

[BlindBoo]

What does condoms have to do with the expense of Birth Control Pills?

I hear they are excellent for clouding the issue.

wrong. They make a point.
I will ask you the same thing...

Other than the pleasure of not having to use a condom during sex, why would one opt for the expensive alternative of birth control pills?

My daughter was prescribe them for endometriosis.

 

[amrchaos]

No...the topic was the cost for Birth Control...and that apparently it costs 3000 a year when yoiu include the cost of the pills, the doctor, the tests, etc.

So my question is valid.

Why not use the most reliable and cheapest form of birth contriol....condoms?

If one has sex 10 times a week it would cost 500 a year.

2500 less....why not?

And why not use both
(By the way, I doubt birth control costs $3000 a year. Please stop misrepresenting the facts. I think Fluke said that the total cost of contraceptive while in law school(which takes several years) cost almost $3000. A big difference mind you.

yeah...that was an unintentional error.

But regardless....

There is no need to use both. No one does now...and no one will in the future..

So putting yoiur diversion aside....

Why would one choose the expoense of BC pills over the reliability and cost effectiveness of condoms?

Like the woman on the hill....why doesnt she just use condoms?

First off, women do use both!

A combination of protection is recommended by doctors. That is not a diversion. This idea in which a person uses one type of protection versus another is an idea you are trying to espouse, but no one can take seriously. Especially if you have access to both.

Think about it, why would someone opt for just the pill if they have access to condoms as well? Why would some one intentionally stop using the pill because they plan to have sex with a condom?

The two types of contraceptives have mutually exclusive pluses that can only be taken advantage of if you use both. So please, stop this nonsensical talk about only using one.
If you are serious about using a contraceptive, please use as many as you possibly can!

 

[mudwhistle]

Mudwhistle,

Your completely honest take on all issues is most appreciated. How do you do it? I mean....you honstly think that this woman enrolled at Georgetown BECAUSE the health plan that she would pay for did not cover contraceptives. That is incredible.

Any person who was not as honest as you would come away from that statement thinking that she enrolled there IN SPITE of that detail.

You are just too honest for us.

Either way, she enrolled full well knowing, and NOW she whines about it?

Like Georgetown is the ONLY place she could study law?

Georgetown is where she earned a scholarship! This may come as a surprised to CON$ervative know-it-alls, but there are some people who can't afford school without a scholarship!

Horseshit.

She applied for any scholarships she received.

If she can qualify for one at Georgetown she can qualify for one at Berkley, or anywhere else she chooses to apply. It doesn't have to be only Georgetown.

 

[Jarhead]

And why not use both
(By the way, I doubt birth control costs $3000 a year. Please stop misrepresenting the facts. I think Fluke said that the total cost of contraceptive while in law school(which takes several years) cost almost $3000. A big difference mind you.

yeah...that was an unintentional error.

But regardless....

There is no need to use both. No one does now...and no one will in the future..

So putting yoiur diversion aside....

Why would one choose the expoense of BC pills over the reliability and cost effectiveness of condoms?

Like the woman on the hill....why doesnt she just use condoms?

First off, women do use both!

A combination of protection is recommended by doctors. That is not a diversion. This idea in which a person uses one type of protection versus another is an idea you are trying to espouse, but no one can take seriously. Especially if you have access to both.

Think about it, why would someone opt for just the pill if they have access to condoms as well? Why would some one intentionally stop using the pill because they plan to have sex with a condom?

The two types of contraceptives have mutually exclusive pluses that can only be taken advantage of if you use both. So please, stop this nonsensical talk about only using one.
If you are serious about using a contraceptive, please use as many as you possibly can!

I give up.

So your position in the debate is...yes, condoms are most reliable and least expensive.....but you may as well use other BC's as well.....why? Becuase they are free?

But thats the point. They are not free.

You want to make them free.

YTou want to tell insurance comnpaniues that they MUST offer BC for free to their policy holders so they can have altenratives.

By the way...your question.......

"Why would some one intentionally stop using the pill because they plan to have sex with a condom?"

If you were trying to engage in an honest debate you would have asked this...

"why would one take on the cost of using the pill if they were planning on uising a condom"

The other way around doesnt make sense. If they already paid for the pill, it would be foolish to not take it.

You are way too closed minded to debate. I asked a vlaid question...why a more expoensive pill over the more relaible and less expensive condom..

And your answer is "why not both".

OK...Congress is fed up with airline delays...so is the public.

So maybe congress should pass a law saying that airlines MUST allow you to book up 3 flights with 3 different airlines...and be allowed to cancel the two that are delayed without penalty so the passneger doesnt have to deal with ever being delayed.

You are a follish debater. I have no interest in persuing this with you anymore.

 

[edthecynic]

Really?

Are you really going there?

I mean...hell.....it is smarter AND safer to have air bags in every nook and cranny of a car. Should we mandate that as well?

Airplanes would be a lot safer with 4 in the cockpit JUST IN CASE 3 of them die of a heart attack....should we mandate that as well?

Heck...we would have less accidents on our raods if they were all 8 lanes going each way....l;ets force all munbicipalities to make 16 lane roads.

Jeez.....so maybe we should have all women get an IUD, AND the pill AND the sponge AND a diaphram aLL FOR FREEE TO MAKE SURE!

Man....you took a valid question of mine and diverted it with such a childish response.

SO I will ask again......why would one opt to use the pill at such a great expense if they can use a condom at the cost of about a buck?

So we jumped from the expense of Birth control pills, to whether it is plausible to using only condoms versus Birth control pills versus both(which will include the cost of Birth control pills) to mandates.

Can we stick to the topic of Birth control pills and their costs?

No...the topic was the cost for Birth Control...and that apparently it costs 3000 a year when yoiu include the cost of the pills, the doctor, the tests, etc.

So my question is valid.

Why not use the most reliable and cheapest form of birth contriol....condoms?

If one has sex 10 times a week it would cost 500 a year.

2500 less....why not?

First of all, the $3,000 was for 3 years not one, and condoms are no way near as reliable as the pill in preventing pregnancy.

 

[Jarhead]

I hear they are excellent for clouding the issue.

wrong. They make a point.
I will ask you the same thing...

Other than the pleasure of not having to use a condom during sex, why would one opt for the expensive alternative of birth control pills?

My daughter was prescribe them for endometriosis.

so she was not prescribed Birth Control.

That is fine...and should be covered.

When the coder put it through the system, it was not coded as BC...it was coded as a need for endometriosis.

Such is done with many prescriptions.

 

[mudwhistle]

Really?

Are you really going there?

I mean...hell.....it is smarter AND safer to have air bags in every nook and cranny of a car. Should we mandate that as well?

Airplanes would be a lot safer with 4 in the cockpit JUST IN CASE 3 of them die of a heart attack....should we mandate that as well?

Heck...we would have less accidents on our raods if they were all 8 lanes going each way....l;ets force all munbicipalities to make 16 lane roads.

Jeez.....so maybe we should have all women get an IUD, AND the pill AND the sponge AND a diaphram aLL FOR FREEE TO MAKE SURE!

Man....you took a valid question of mine and diverted it with such a childish response.

SO I will ask again......why would one opt to use the pill at such a great expense if they can use a condom at the cost of about a buck?

So we jumped from the expense of Birth control pills, to whether it is plausible to using only condoms versus Birth control pills versus both(which will include the cost of Birth control pills) to mandates.

Can we stick to the topic of Birth control pills and their costs?

No...the topic was the cost for Birth Control...and that apparently it costs 3000 a year when yoiu include the cost of the pills, the doctor, the tests, etc.

So my question is valid.

Why not use the most reliable and cheapest form of birth contriol....condoms?

If one has sex 10 times a week it would cost 500 a year.

2500 less....why not?

I think the issue Fluk brought up was ovarian problems. Doctors sometime prescribe BC pills to regulate their periods. Sometimes Estrogen therapy helps. It's not an exact science. They try what works for the individual. However, asking for the school to pay for your BC pills when you can get them free or for $9 at Walmart is pretty ridiculous.

 

[rightwinger]

So now we are getting siomewhere.

So it is all about people not willing to do it the smart way or the least expensive way.

It is all about doing it the easiest way as long as the tax payer pays for it.

Tax payer has nothing to do with it. The issue is insurance companies. Some insurance companies will pay for Viagra and not birth control pills

When my wife and I first got married, we had to pay for BC out of pocket. It was a medical expense we really didn't need at that time and it would have been great to have insurance pay for it.

Each of our children cost about $20 thousand for the insurance company. Any "accidents" would have cost them a lot more than monthly pills

So it woiuld make sense for an insurance company to WANT to cover BC. Sop if they do, great...if they dont, such was their choice.

But tell me....why were you spending so much on BC if condoms are more realiable and much cheaper?

Why is no one asnwering that?

To be honest.....my penis is much too large to use off the shelf condoms

I would have had to have them custom made

 

[Katzndogz]

Not only sex 9 times a day but with guys who refuse to buy their own condoms!