Just read Limbaugh's comments in context

[TennTradition]

He made the exact same mistake that Santorum (and to a lesser extent Romney made). The focus shouldn't be on anything except the insurers or employer's right to define their own coverages.

I still cannot abide by any of the Dem's logic on the issue. Birth control is simply not that expensive, and it is and always will be widely available.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make about Rush.

 

[dreVol]

now limbaugh's getting death threats?

THE POLITICS OF HATE: Dems Incite Death Threats Against Limbaugh. And Limbaugh’s already had to call the bomb squad to his house. That’s their approach. Marginalize, then brutalize.

When will President Obama speak out against this hatred and extremism? Probably never. But since it’s been established that this sort of thing happens via close coordination between the White House and Media Matters, etc., there’s no denying responsibility now. I call upon the President to denounce his supporters’ hateful violent rhetoric, to promise not to engage in or encourage it again, and to apologize to Limbaugh for stirring up this cesspit of hatred among his followers. A President is supposed to lead, not incite violence

Maybe we should start posting Obamicons with “HATE” instead of “HOPE” until he does. . . .

Instapundit » Blog Archive » THE POLITICS OF HATE: Dems Incite Death Threats Against Limbaugh. And Limbaugh’s already had to ca…

 

[gsvol]

 

[volsforever27]

what about Obama's accommodation? "ok catholic church, I won't make you pay to provide birth control. sorry, insurance companies. you have to foot the bill."

insurance companies aren't altruistic enterprises, so this added cost will necessarily get passed onto other subscribers

Yep. Someone always pays.

 

[TennTradition]

I can't help but see the money issue as being manufactured here. It makes this debate fit in nicely with the whole welfare culture...when it is really a much different issue.

Why can't a special class be created for these morally objectionable drugs/treatments where the increase in premium cost brought on by covering them is passed-on in full by the employer to the employees. The employer covers its normal level of the premiums for Class A drugs/treatments and the employee covers his/her normal level (let's say it's 70/30). Then, the total premium is increased by x dollars due to the addition of Class B (morally objectionable) drugs/treatments. This add-on to the premium is paid for 0/100 employer/employee. Yes, this would make the cost of insurance higher for the employees of these private companies, but they are choosing to work for them. I don't see this necessarily providing any more of a negative incentive to work for a private company that has these moral objections than the current situation where these morally objectionable drugs/treatments are not covered at all.

 

[KoachKrab127]

Limbaugh was completely lying, however. Fluke was not demanding to be paid to have sex. She was saying that contraception needs to be covered by health insurance companies. If you pay a health insurance premium, you should get contraception coverage.

She was not demanding that YOU pay for her sex the way Limbaugh and Fox News would have you believe.

Limbaugh and Fox News lie and makes up "facts" CONSTANTLY.

Yesterday O'Reilly and his guest were outraged at how Fluke expects people to pay for her contraception. No...she doesn't want tax payers to pay for contraception. She wants her health insurance, which she pays a premium for, to include contraception as part of its coverage because not only is it important to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion, it's also important for some women's health.

HOW DARE SHE!

:crazy:

 

[utvolpj]

Limbaugh was completely lying, however. Fluke was not demanding to be paid to have sex. She was saying that contraception needs to be covered by health insurance companies. If you pay a health insurance premium, you should get contraception coverage.

She was not demanding that YOU pay for her sex the way Limbaugh and Fox News would have you believe.

Limbaugh and Fox News lie and makes up "facts" CONSTANTLY.

Yesterday O'Reilly and his guest were outraged at how Fluke expects people to pay for her contraception. No...she doesn't want tax payers to pay for contraception. She wants her health insurance, which she pays a premium for, to include contraception as part of its coverage because not only is it important to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion, it's also important for some women's health.

HOW DARE SHE!

:crazy:

Fluke is a fake but that's not really the point anyway. Sadly you're completely following the magician's misdirection. Her target is not the insurance co

 

[KoachKrab127]

Fluke is a fake but that's not really the point anyway. Sadly you're completely following the magician's misdirection. Her target is not the insurance co

Her entire speech was about insurance companies not providing contraception coverage. Please explain to me this elaborate, conspiracy theory that you were so ingenious to discover through your tin foil hat.

 

[KoachKrab127]

"When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body."

-Fluke

That's a powerful quote. There's all this BS about "I don't want the government to come between me and my doctor!" when we talk about Obama care. Well, the Blunt Amendment allows the insurance company to dictate what is or is not healthy for the woman, not the doctor. It allows the company to stand completely between you and your doctor. It's a disgrace.

“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.
“I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’
“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result."

This is what America is about? You pay a premium, and an insurance company's "beliefs" prevent you from getting the treatment you need for your health? I thought it was called health insurance because it INSURED your health. I didn't know it was in place to judge, condemn, and rob you blind. But she deserves it because she was looking for a handout, right? The woman paying a premium and expecting the insurance company to hold up their end of the bargain deserved it because she felt entitled, right?

Ridiculous. If you pay an insurance premium, you ARE entitled to receive health care.

Republicans want us to pay insurance companies and STILL not receive health care, and how DARE these people who pay premiums feel ENTITLED to health care!

 

[utvolpj]

Her entire speech was about insurance companies not providing contraception coverage. Please explain to me this elaborate, conspiracy theory that you were so ingenious to discover through your tin foil hat.

she chose to go to GTown and then acts shocked when they don't cover contraceptives. Surely a person smart enough to get into GTown law knew this before applying right?

she has grabbed the headlines while not even addressing the original argument. Do you believe the govt has the right to force religious entities to services that are against their stated beliefs?

 

[KoachKrab127]

she chose to go to GTown and then acts shocked when they don't cover contraceptives. Surely a person smart enough to get into GTown law knew this before applying right?

she has grabbed the headlines while not even addressing the original argument. Do you believe the govt has the right to force religious entities to services that are against their stated beliefs?

I don't think insurance companies should be allowed to grill you about your personal life and decide that you can't have a prescription because they assume you are using it to prevent pregnancy. What ever happened to that "don't get between me and my doctor!" talk? Oh right, that applies to the government, but we must let insurance companies do that. They need their profit. We MUST protect big businesses at all cost. Forget about getting people treatment they need, let's focus on profit.

Second, the bible says NOTHING about birth control being a sin. Also, the bible says NOTHING about abortion being a sin. There are a few scriptures where God encourages abortion. (Hosea 13:16, 2 Kings 15:16, Psalm 137:8-9) But forget about that. Let's pretend for a second that crazy religious fundamentalists are actually right. You know what else should be banned because it's in the bible? If someone gets an allergic reaction to eating shellfish, the insurance company shouldn't pay for it because eating shellfish is an abomination. See how well that goes over when you claim religious beliefs.

The bible also says unruly kids should be stoned to death, people who work on the sabbath should be put to death (I guess if you get injured on the weekend at work, insurance companies should not have to contribute to those medical bills either, for...you know..."religious beliefs").

The bible also says slavery is great, wearing polyester and cotton is an abomination, planting more than one vegetable in your garden is an abomination, and touching a dead pig is a sin. Anyone who has ever eaten bacon is going to Hell.

The bible is full of ridiculous stuff.

 

[utvolpj]

The bible is full of ridiculous stuff.

don't disagree but do you think it is constitutional for the govt to tell any religious institution that they must provide services that are clearly against their beliefs?

this is a cause not a simple case of some woman wanting BC. If that was true she wouldn't be trotting out the $3k number when it's been shown that is a lie. If she needs it for health reasons then rename it since BC is clearly not what the drug should be called

 

[Gramps]

Rush said today that the sponsors that has pulled their ads is nothing. He is not worried about it. They are no more than spilling a few fries at the McDonalds drive thru.

 

[lumberjack4]

don't disagree but do you think it is constitutional for the govt to tell any religious institution that they must provide services that are clearly against their beliefs?

this is a cause not a simple case of some woman wanting BC. If that was true she wouldn't be trotting out the $3k number when it's been shown that is a lie. If she needs it for health reasons then rename it since BC is clearly not what the drug should be called

How about if you don't like the benefits your employer is offering, you start looking for a new employer. Its a novel concept, I know.

 

[KoachKrab127]

do you think it is constitutional for the govt to tell any religious institution that they must provide services that are clearly against their beliefs?

If they really believed in Jesus, they wouldn't become members of insurance companies. They wouldn't prey off of working individuals and then refuse to help them when they are sick. That is hypocrisy to the extreme.

Is this what Jesus would want? Would he want you to take money for years from individuals and then deny them health care because of a lie the Catholic church has been spreading? Yeah, I'm sure Jesus, who healed the sick without demanding profits would approve of that. These people are not Christian. They're fake. They are using it as an excuse to deny coverage so their wallets can get 0.04% fatter. I sure wish Jesus would come back to Earth. These guys would be the first ones going straight to Hell.

"It is easier for a camel to fit through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into heaven."

-the insurance companies' God.

 

[TennTradition]

Above post confuses me.

 

[NEO]

The problem with it is that group health insurance is already based on gender more than anything else and once this passes the health insurance companies will pass the cost onto us, the employer which raises our overhead and cuts into our nets.

it's bs.

 

[TennTradition]

What percentage of insured Americans are currently denied contraceptives by their employer's plans based on their employer's moral obligation? That has to be a small percentage.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why the scenario I outlined above can't be carried out (i.e., a rider is added to cover BC and all of this additional premium is covered by the employees - but obviously all employees would have to purchase the rider along with the normal plan, which the employer does subsidize).

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I don't think insurance companies should be allowed to grill you about your personal life and decide that you can't have a prescription because they assume you are using it to prevent pregnancy. What ever happened to that "don't get between me and my doctor!" talk? Oh right, that applies to the government, but we must let insurance companies do that. They need their profit. We MUST protect big businesses at all cost. Forget about getting people treatment they need, let's focus on profit.

Really??? Birth control is now defined as a need?

Second, the bible says NOTHING about birth control being a sin. Also, the bible says NOTHING about abortion being a sin. There are a few scriptures where God encourages abortion. (Hosea 13:16, 2 Kings 15:16, Psalm 137:8-9) But forget about that. Let's pretend for a second that crazy religious fundamentalists are actually right. You know what else should be banned because it's in the bible? If someone gets an allergic reaction to eating shellfish, the insurance company shouldn't pay for it because eating shellfish is an abomination. See how well that goes over when you claim religious beliefs.

The bible also says unruly kids should be stoned to death, people who work on the sabbath should be put to death (I guess if you get injured on the weekend at work, insurance companies should not have to contribute to those medical bills either, for...you know..."religious beliefs").

The bible also says slavery is great, wearing polyester and cotton is an abomination, planting more than one vegetable in your garden is an abomination, and touching a dead pig is a sin. Anyone who has ever eaten bacon is going to Hell.

The bible is full of ridiculous stuff.

Just a sincere suggestion... I would avoid using quotes from the Bible if you don't really understand the context.

 

[GAVol]

The problem with it is that group health insurance is already based on gender more than anything else and once this passes the health insurance companies will pass the cost onto us, the employer which raises our overhead and cuts into our nets.

it's bs.

I can't believe more people aren't getting that. The govt can't just wave a wand to mandate an insurance company giveaway and it not have consequences.

 

[KoachKrab127]

Just a sincere suggestion... I would avoid using quotes from the Bible if you don't really understand the context.

I could say the same about those republicans who choose to hate gays and lie about Jesus hating contraceptives, which weren't even available in biblical times. I know a Hell lot more about the Bible than fundamentalist Christians who simply spew Leviticus 18:22. A few sentences later, it says eating shrimp is an abomination. Next thing, insurance companies will refuse treatment of shellfish allergic reactions because of religious beliefs.

And to answer your question about contraceptives being a need, well, if you had read the Fluke (Hell, just read the quote I posted) testimony you would know that her friend was prescribed contraceptives as treatment for cysts on her ovaries. The insurance company denied coverage because they were "sure" she was lying and really using them to prevent pregnancy. Then, she ended up in the emergency room with terrible pain and lost some of her ovaries.

This is what we want in America, isn't it? Insurance companies robbing you blind and then denying you healthcare because of their "beliefs." It's BS. Do you honestly believe that insurance companies are doing this because of their religious beliefs? Hell no. They are doing it to increase profit by a less than marginal amount. They'll be in Hell soon enough though. God have mercy on them.

 

[lumberjack4]

What percentage of insured Americans are currently denied contraceptives by their employer's plans based on their employer's moral obligation? That has to be a small percentage.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why the scenario I outlined above can't be carried out (i.e., a rider is added to cover BC and all of this additional premium is covered by the employees - but obviously all employees would have to purchase the rider along with the normal plan, which the employer does subsidize).

I'm sure if this happened we would hear about it being gender discrimination. This is why I don't like employer provided insurance. Thru them, I can't get the plan that makes sense for me, I have to get a catch-all plan that's does the least amount of damage to the company. It's so much simpler to buy my own plan that only covers what I need, so I'm not paying for a service I can't even use.

 

[TennTradition]

I can't believe more people aren't getting that. The govt can't just wave a wand to mandate an insurance company giveaway and it not have consequences.

That can't be automatically associated with the original argument under debate here. The first question is can those employers be forced to add it to their plans (and pay for it).

The idea of the government mandating the insurance companies cover it, but not make the employers pay is a response to complaints about the first approach.

I think it is important to keep the two separate when characterizing the debate.

 

[TennTradition]

I'm sure if this happened we would hear about it being gender discrimination. This is why I don't like employer provided insurance. Thru them, I can't get the plan that makes sense for me, I have to get a catch-all plan that's does the least amount of damage to the company. It's so much simpler to buy my own plan that only covers what I need, so I'm not paying for a service I can't even use.

It's not really gender-based, though. First, all employees would cover the expense of this premium - just as all employees bear a portion of the total plan costs...including services they cannot get due to gender. Second, vasectomies are a form of contraception. Do insurances cover this? It isn't necessarily a one-gender street.

It may be simpler to only buy a plan that addresses what you need, but then wouldn't we miss out on the whole idea of benefit through group insurance. If we only bought insurance for stuff we knew we were going to use, it seems the premiums would pretty much equal the cost of those services. That's why I'm saying all employees of the private company would have to purchase the "private employer of moral objection" (if you will) rider. Otherwise, it isn't group insurance anymore and somewhat defeats the purpose.

 

[Lexvol]

I could say the same about those republicans who choose to hate gays and lie about Jesus hating contraceptives, which weren't even available in biblical times. I know a Hell lot more about the Bible than fundamentalist Christians who simply spew Leviticus 18:22. A few sentences later, it says eating shrimp is an abomination. Next thing, insurance companies will refuse treatment of shellfish allergic reactions because of religious beliefs.

And to answer your question about contraceptives being a need, well, if you had read the Fluke (Hell, just read the quote I posted) testimony you would know that her friend was prescribed contraceptives as treatment for cysts on her ovaries. The insurance company denied coverage because they were "sure" she was lying and really using them to prevent pregnancy. Then, she ended up in the emergency room with terrible pain and lost some of her ovaries.

This is what we want in America, isn't it? Insurance companies robbing you blind and then denying you healthcare because of their "beliefs." It's BS. Do you honestly believe that insurance companies are doing this because of their religious beliefs? Hell no. They are doing it to increase profit by a less than marginal amount. They'll be in Hell soon enough though. God have mercy on them.

Please keep posting. This is as entertained as I've been in a while.