Jump to content

US Politics: 1950's edition


Recommended Posts

You will no doubt be aware FLOW that $9/mth is for a generic form of hormonal birth control which will not work for everyone. Further to that hormonal BC is used to treat cysts on the ovaries(which can be fatal) extremely painful periods, PCOS, and heavy bleeding all of which have sweet fuck all to do with sex. I believe an hormonal IUD which is used to treat the disorders I mentioned is a good deal more expensive than $9/mth. (in fact the figure that I've seen is more in the region of $100/mth but I can't corroborate this).

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he's got the head of the DNC coming on his show to rally support, so it's not exactly just an innocent comedy show either.

He has anyone that will come on his show, come on his show. Look up the guest list.

And no one said it was an "innocent" comedy show either. There is a political bent towards the subject matter and making absurdity transparent in such a way that hopefully it still get's laughs.

Just because there are more blatantly absurd Republicans in the news doesn't make Bill Maher partisan, nor important.

But keep fucking that chicken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only this, but also reducing it to some "$9/month" issue is totally missing the point. Injustice is fine as long as it's relatively cheap? This is an issue about equality and religious dogma, please don't go pretending that it's about those 9 bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will no doubt be aware FLOW that $9/mth is for a generic form of hormonal birth control which will not work for everyone. Further to that hormonal BC is used to treat cysts on the ovaries(which can be fatal) extremely painful periods, PCOS, and heavy bleeding all of which have sweet fuck all to do with sex. I believe an hormonal IUD which is used to treat the disorders I mentioned is a good deal more expensive than $9/mth. (in fact the figure that I've seen is more in the region of $100/mth but I can't corroborate this).

Don't even bother. He's already showed repeatedly that he is more than willing to ignore that fact and any others that come perilously close to destroying the rhetoric he must stand by at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even bother. He's already showed repeatedly that he is more than willing to ignore that fact and any others that come perilously close to destroying the rhetoric he must stand by at all costs.

True but I hadnt seen it stated (unless I missed it) so I thought it was worth saying at least once.

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will no doubt be aware FLOW that $9/mth is for a generic form of hormonal birth control which will not work for everyone. Further to that hormonal BC is used to treat cysts on the ovaries(which can be fatal) extremely painful periods, PCOS, and heavy bleeding all of which have sweet fuck all to do with sex. I believe an hormonal IUD which is used to treat the disorders I mentioned is a good deal more expensive than $9/mth. (in fact the figure that I've seen is more in the region of $100/mth but I can't corroborate this).

My wife actually takes birth control to treat endometriosis and ovarian cysts, so I'm very familiar with that. But Georgetown's policy did cover the prescription of birth control hormones when being used to treat a medical illness. They just wouldn't cover them if they were offered solely for the purpose of birth control.

Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases. Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577263281305035966.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has anyone that will come on his show, come on his show. Look up the guest list.

So what? The issue isn't Bill Maher himself, or who he will permit on his show. The question is who is willing to go on his show despite him saying the things he said. And despite him labelling a woman a "cunt", "twat", and saying that she would fuck Rick Perry if he was black, the head of the DNC went on his show and didn't say jackshit about any of those comments he had made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From President Obama's Press Conference this afternoon:

CBS's Norah O'Donnell: Mitt Romney has called you one of the most feckless presidents since Jimmy Carter.

What would you say to him?

President Obama, with a smile: Good luck tonight.

So what? The issue isn't Bill Maher himself, or who he will permit on his show. The question is who is willing to go on his show despite him saying the things he said. And despite him labelling a woman a "cunt", "twat", and saying that she would fuck Rick Perry if he was black, the head of the DNC went on his show and didn't say jackshit about any of those comments he had made.

Neither did Ann Coulter.

What's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife actually takes birth control to treat endometriosis and ovarian cysts, so I'm very familiar with that. But Georgetown's policy did cover the prescription of birth control hormones when being used to treat a medical illness. They just wouldn't cover them if they were offered solely for the purpose of birth control.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577263281305035966.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

You're not going to answer the point that even if you are using the pill for birth control you may not be suited to the $9/mth generic pill? That would make it more expensive and directly impact those that can't afford the more expensive pill? Y'know this isn't just about one woman that you think should be ridiculed because she's simply not the RIGHT advocate.

But hey I'm getting back into the realm of why preventing unwanted pregnancy is a good thing and you e already dismissed those points, so I think I'll leave it there.

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling this is that the Catholic Church, whose sexual impropriety in the U.S. and other countries is now infamous, is trying to wiggle out of paying medical insurance for drugs and procedures everyone else is going to have to pay, smacks of hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked this in the last thread but no one answered me.

Are these religious organizations opposed to paying for any part of contraception as part of a larger insurance program (ie the entire price of contraception is on the patient)? Or are they opposed to giving away medication without a copay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what?

Apologies. You brought it up. I foolishly thought that meant that discussion was an option.

The issue isn't Bill Maher himself,

Good to know. Kindly let me me know when it is again. I can't keep track of your convenience.

or who he will permit on his show.

"Permit?" lol This isn't an ad campaign; you don't have to tailor your language.

The question is who is willing to go on his show despite him saying the things he said.

Again, check the guest list. And again, again... who the fuck cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked this in the last thread but no one answered me.

Are these religious organizations opposed to paying for any part of contraception as part of a larger insurance program (ie the entire price of contraception is on the patient)? Or are they opposed to giving away medication without a copay?

Both.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/politifact-the-facts-on-the-health-care-law-birth-control-and-the-catholic/1214769

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing, FLOW's "defense" of Limbaugh is the exact same one Limbaugh is now using. Though I believe Rush is pointing at rappers instead of Bill Maher.

I asked this in the last thread but no one answered me.

Are these religious organizations opposed to paying for any part of contraception as part of a larger insurance program (ie the entire price of contraception is on the patient)? Or are they opposed to giving away medication without a copay?

The original rule was that your insurance plan had to include contraception. Organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church (specifically hospitals and the like) threw a fit about being forced to provide contraception. So they changed the rule so that, if you didn't want to do that, the insurance company has to cover it directly.

Basically, your employees get contraception no matter what, but if you have a moral objection to the transaction, you don't have to be part of it. Though you still have to pay for it because it's still part of the services your insurance company is required to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the GOP be fucked (the dirty sluts):

http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/fox_news_latino_voters_favor_obama_by_six-to-one_over_all_republicans._immi/

Latino voters favor President Barack Obama by six-to-one over any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, showed a Fox News Latino poll conducted under the direction of Latin Insights and released Monday.

6-1

70%-14% vs Romney

Turns out being racist against latinos pisses them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not going to answer the point that even if you are using the pill for birth control you may not be suited to the $9/mth generic pill? That would make it more expensive and directly impact those that can't afford the more expensive pill? Y'know this isn't just about one woman that you think should be ridiculed because she's simply not the RIGHT advocate.

Well, I thought that I did answer it, but I'll try it again. First, as a political matter, it is perfectly appropriate to use that one woman as an example if she chooses to testify. Second, she's not some shrinking violet or innocent yanked from the woodwork. She's on record as having said she investigated the policy before deciding to attend, and has been lobbying for it for awhile. She was president of the school's reproductive rights advocacy group, and wanted this controversy from the moment (and even before) she enrolled. But on to the contraceptives.

I'll reiterate the quote from the article I linked above if my position is not clear, and yes, it is about the money.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Spin it however you want, but that is the reality. I personally do not give two shits who has sex with whom, and I'm not some uptight prick who only had sex with one woman in my life and married her, etc. I've bought condoms myself, I've dated women who've bought their own birth control, and for a couple of long-time girfriends, I chipped in for the cost. But that was our business and responsibility, not anyone else's. Maybe we just thought that way because we weren't spoiled little entitlement brats.

The mindset that I have the right to demand that others pay for what my girlfriend and I chose to do is honestly something alien to me. That opinion has nothing to do with morality, but strikes me as akin to asking society to pick up my bar tab or movie ticket. We are talking recreational sex. There is nothing grand or noble involved, no matter how much you may try to make it so. It's fucking for fun, so why shouldn't you pay whatever costs are ancillary to your chosen recreational activity? Cripe, don't you people have any fucking personal pride at all?

Now, if an insurance company wants to cover that, and an employer wants to buy that insurance, I could care less. They should be free to do that, or not to do that, for whatever reasons matter to them. And if that employer's reason happens to be that they don't think fucking for free is good, then who are you to complain? You have no right to them subsidizing your fucking in the first place, so their reasons for denying it shouldn't matter.

Does that make my position clear?

I swear, the fucking problem with a good segment of humanity right now is that they have a terminal case of "I want it, and someone has to give it to me. Just because I want it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only this, but also reducing it to some "$9/month" issue is totally missing the point. Injustice is fine as long as it's relatively cheap? This is an issue about equality and religious dogma, please don't go pretending that it's about those 9 bucks.

And the fact that certain brands of the pill are available to her for $9/month there is irrelevant. Let's say she was a law student at Fordham (another Catholic institution that has an arguably even MORE overprice law program than Georgetown's). Her best bet is to take 2 busses up to the Target on 114th St. That's cross town (Fordham Law is at Lincoln Center), then approximately 50 blocks uptown. And I'm guessing the Manhattan Target has an exemption from the program (if it doesn't, kudos to them, but Manhattan is usually in the fine print for this sort of thing). (Heck, when I was at NYU, admittedly 10 years ago, I could get birth control for $15/month from Student Health. There was no Target at all at the time, but $6 would not have made the trip WAAAAAYYYYY up town worth it (it would have cost at then current prices $4 to get there an back, so really, not worth it when you factor in the time drain)). Better spokesman for the class? Maybe. Doesn't change the issue.

BTW, I have some sympathy for a private religious university wanting some say over this sort of thing. I think they are WRONG, misguided and dumb, and should probably have to give up at least some federal funding, but that's their choice. I analogize to law schools that in the 1990s and early aughts gave up federal funding rather than letting JAG recruiters on campus in protest of don't ask don't tell. They finally caved when the feds said they'd pull funding to other parts of the universities.

NONE of that answers whether the 3 day viscious attack on her personal morals was warranted and whether Rush is a sexist pig (it wasn't, and he is).

Well, I thought that I did answer it, but I'll try it again. First, as a political matter, it is perfectly appropriate to use that one woman as an example if she chooses to testify. Second, she's not some shrinking violet or innocent yanked from the woodwork. She's on record as having said she investigated the policy before deciding to attend, and has been lobbying for it for awhile. She was president of the school's reproductive rights advocacy group, and wanted this controversy from the moment (and even before) she enrolled. But on to the contraceptives.

I'll reiterate the quote from the article I linked above if my position is not clear, and yes, it is about the money.

Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

Spin it however you want, but that is the reality. I personally do not give two shits who has sex with whom, and I'm not some uptight prick who only had sex with one woman in my life and married her, etc. I've bought condoms myself, I've dated women who've bought their own birth control, and for a couple of long-time girfriends, I chipped in for the cost. But that was our business and responsibility, not anyone else's. Maybe we just thought that way because we weren't spoiled little entitlement brats.

The mindset that I have the right to demand that others pay for what my girlfriend and I chose to do is honestly something alien to me. That opinion has nothing to do with morality, but strikes me as akin to asking society to pick up my bar tab or movie ticket. We are talking recreational sex. There is nothing grand or noble involved, no matter how much you may try to make it so. It's fucking for fun, so why shouldn't you pay whatever costs are ancillary to your chosen recreational activity? Cripe, don't you people have any fucking personal pride at all?

Now, if an insurance company wants to cover that, and an employer wants to buy that insurance, I could care less. They should be free to do that, or not to do that, for whatever reasons matter to them. And if that employer's reason happens to be that they don't think fucking for free is good, then who are you to complain? You have no right to them subsidizing your fucking in the first place, so their reasons for denying it shouldn't matter.

Does that make my position clear?

I swear, the fucking problem with a good segment of humanity right now is that they have a terminal case of "I want it, and someone has to give it to me. Just because I want it."

Same position on Viagra (Cialis and similar) I assume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

I just read Fluke's testimony and I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Sounds to me like Fluke is asking that the college's health care plan, which offers prescription coverage, cover prescription contraception. This is NOT a free plan. Students pay for it. They also pay a co-pay for prescriptions. Nobody's asking anyone to give them anything, and Fluke never ONCE mentioned her own sex life.

I can't square this with your statement above. I want my health care plan that I pay for to cover birth control too.

ETA: Zabz, Viagra, et al are explicitly not covered under Georgetown's prescription policy as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the notion that its just recreational sex removes too much of the complexity here, flow.

For instance, it is monetarily good policy to encourage planned parenthood and thus to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is better to prevent abortions taking place. It is cheaper to not have to rely on the morning after pill.

This makes supporting contraception akin to supporting preventative medicine.

Ultimately I agree that outside of everything else, an individual should provide their own contraception if they are reasonably able to do so. But that ignores too much else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...