Limbaugh and Coed Sex

[Gene Scarborough]

Go ahead, Neil---I have gotten several positive PM's thanking me for making things more interesting!

I totally share the feeling that men need to mind their own business--before their wives just tell them to shut up!

[Dave Roberts]

Cathy, thank you for bringing some fitting concerns to this. We need more reasoned thought and less political pontificating.

[Haruo]

Just wondering if Rush's own drugs are covered by his insurance.

[Ed Pettibone]

Just wondering if Rush's own drugs are covered by his insurance.

With his support from sponsors, appealing to ditto heads he may be self insured. This could explain his "apology".

[Timothy Bonney]

Cathy, I am glad you posted! Far too much of this entire discussion has become a political agenda for men. i was floored when a congressional committee wouldnt hear a woman's view on a women's issue but instead deferred to a bunch of men.

[Gene Scarborough]

We wisely gave the vote to women / we now elect them to represent us / they more often put oil on troubled waters when men a doing their macho competition to the brink of war!

[Neil Heath]

This article tells of several states where women have introduced legislation regulating men's access to Viagra and vasectomies, etc. I say good for them!

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/ohio-senator-introduces-bill-to-regulate-mens-sexual-health-and-prove-a-point.php?ref=fpb

[Haruo]

I wonder if there are a significant number of Santorum-types out there who actually think it would be doing God a favor to remove women's right to vote, and to return to the chattel system of women's personhood that prevailed in Mosaic times. Unmarried women are subject to their fathers (or in the event of his absence or demise, their oldest/closest adult male relatives), and married women to their husbands. Fornication and adultery become property crimes. Much easier.

[Chris]

I think Limbaugh is like the preacher ranting about sex from the pulpit---trying to cover his own perversions and addictions.

You may be onto something there.

[Chris]

Are Limbaugh's pain meds paid for out-of-pocket....or with insurance his employer provides? Just wondering.

[ET]

Ed: And the thread gives Rush's comments an even wider audience. But Tim did you really mean you told Carbonite you would "be using their product if they continued to support Rush."

No Ed, typing too fast as usual. I meant that I would not be a customer if they continued to advertise on Rush's show. After they pulled their advertising I upped my subscription for another year.

Facebook was a good place for the campaign. Many people posted to Carbonite's page they they'd not be supporting the product if the sponsorship wasn't pulled.

Ooops....this should be interesting to watch: Investors flee Carbonite after Limbaugh announcement.

If any of you should ever have the opportunity to hire Ms. Fluke as a lawyer, you might want to think twice about it. She apparently doesn't do her research very well....
$9: Price for a Month's Supply of Birth Control Pills at Target 3 Miles from Georgetown Law
Testimony: Georgetown Law Student Couldn't Afford Contraception--At School Surrounded by Planned Parenthood Clinics Distributing Condoms

And folks thought this was all about women's access to "affordable" birth control. How naive. Power, my friends, power. The church is in the way. The Constitution be damned.

[ET]

This article tells of several states where women have introduced legislation regulating men's access to Viagra and vasectomies, etc. I say good for them!

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/ohio-senator-introduces-bill-to-regulate-mens-sexual-health-and-prove-a-point.php?ref=fpb

Are Limbaugh's pain meds paid for out-of-pocket....or with insurance his employer provides? Just wondering.

What have either of these issues to do with the core issue of the federal government abridging the freedom of religion to force the Catholic church to provide health services to which it has a moral objection? There is no Catholic teaching against pain medications, and Obama is not attempting to get the federal government to force insurance providers to violate their conscience to provide them.

Is there teaching of the Catholic church that forbids Viagra, which has nothing to do with contraception, but if anything would aid in procreation? None to my knowledge, so its a bogus argument.

And if vasectomies are not covered by the insurance policies of the Catholic church due to a church teaching, should the federal government force the church and its affiliated organizations to provide those services also over their objections to such contraceptive procedures for men?

On another note, it's quite an interesting read in the comments sections of many news sites on this matter. <begin sarcasm>The Rush haters are so full of compassion, forgiveness and understanding. The discourse is so civil and an example to us all. And their past treatment of conservative women is a standard of civility that we should all seek to emulate.<end sarcasm>

[Ed Pettibone]

This article tells of several states where women have introduced legislation regulating men's access to Viagra and vasectomies, etc. I say good for them!

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/ohio-senator-introduces-bill-to-regulate-mens-sexual-health-and-prove-a-point.php?ref=fpb

Are Limbaugh's pain meds paid for out-of-pocket....or with insurance his employer provides? Just wondering.

What have either of these issues to do with the core issue of the federal government abridging the freedom of religion to force the Catholic church to provide health services to which it has a moral objection? There is no Catholic teaching against pain medications, and Obama is not attempting to get the federal government to force insurance providers to violate their conscience to provide them.

Is there teaching of the Catholic church that forbids Viagra, which has nothing to do with contraception, but if anything would aid in procreation? None to my knowledge, so its a bogus argument.

And if vasectomies are not covered by the insurance policies of the Catholic church due to a church teaching, should the federal government force the church and its affiliated organizations to provide those services also over their objections to such contraceptive procedures for men?

On another note, it's quite an interesting read in the comments sections of many news sites on this matter. <begin sarcasm>The Rush haters are so full of compassion, forgiveness and understanding. The discourse is so civil and an example to us all. And their past treatment of conservative women is a standard of civility that we should all seek to emulate.<end sarcasm>

Ed: Except for that "Viagra, which has nothing to do with contraception" line which may or may not be the case, you made some very good points in the post just above.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

How did you miss the stuff about rethinking the edges of healthcare to eliminate the conflict???

You Conservative guys get so caught up in your rage, you aren't listening nor giving a President getting now help from Congress any concrete "alternate ideas."

Just constant rage and stupid, in my view

[ET]

Ed: Except for that "Viagra, which has nothing to do with contraception" line which may or may not be the case, you made some very good points in the post just above.

Well, Ed P, I don't have any statistics, but all of the commercials I see air and from the marketing materials, Viagra is geared toward older men most likely more interested in intimacy with their wife and not in procreating. It may assist in some cases, but Viagra and other meds like it aren't really geared toward procreation.

[ET]

ET---

How did you miss the stuff about rethinking the edges of healthcare to eliminate the conflict???

You Conservative guys get so caught up in your rage, you aren't listening nor giving a President getting now help from Congress any concrete "alternate ideas."

Just constant rage and stupid, in my view

Gene, there are plenty of alternate ideas out there from conservatives if you look. I've offered one for health care numerous times.

Abolish the tax deduction companies get for providing it to their employees. Encourage that money to be given directly to the employees so that they purchase it instead of their employer, thus removing the problem of losing one's insurance if you change jobs.

As long as health care is a "somebody else is paying for it" service, the consumer does not have much incentive to control costs or to even ask if there are cheaper alternatives.

[Gene Scarborough]

ET---

Have you ever compared the price of individual policies vs. group???

If you did, you would realize how foolish the above sounds! I was in the biz and know what is the program.

The valid alternate would be a large pool health insurance program offered to individuals not wanting insurance from their employer. The bottom line is that insurance is "the sharing of risks." All carriers rate their clients according to their claims history and stated health conditions. Someone looking for cheap coverage who has massive health issues is not seeking insurance---but cheap discounts.

I am confident a nationalized public program could be accomplished----but not a long as Doctors and Big Pharma want their high income!

[Cathy]

I didn't start this thread but IMHO ET has set it a drift. And Ed P has approved his off the point message.

If the subject is church and state then maybe it would be better to start another thread.

The subject is Limbaugh's assault on a young woman in law school who was advocating for women and not complaining about her own situation.

The least expensive OCP may be $9.99/month but her numbers were probably based on the higher limit costs. It likely included a visit and follow up visit both coded as contraceptive care (so not covered by some insurance). If a woman does not tolerate the first script then it may become necessary to prescribe another more pricey alternative.

I have read over and over that her point was the difficulty women encounter when they need OCPs for other medical problems. Sometimes the hoops that they must jump through are demeaning and excessively time consuming. That limits access to the care they need.

Limbaugh was extremely crass and his apology was far from adequate. He took her words from a formal appearance at a hearing entirely out of context and verbally brutalized a young woman. I don't believe Limbaugh made much of a point about the church and state issue. Instead he suggested that our tax money would pay for her OCPs. That is also not true. She wants private insurance plans to cover these expenses. I am sure she would want all women to have equal access but that was not her topic either.

[Haruo]

Luckily, since she is not (or was not at the time) a "public figure", she can probably get some damages from him in civil court.

Mrs H just reported that he has lost two dozen sponsors, and several stations have taken him off the air. If it gets much worse, he may not be able to pay the damages assessed.

[Chris]

Mrs H just reported that he has lost two dozen sponsors, and several stations have taken him off the air. If it gets much worse, he may not be able to pay the damages assessed.

[Gene Scarborough]

Just make him go outside his little haven of hate and get on a bus with a bunch of women going to their low-paid jobs----even better to a college campus with many women preparing their minds for a future he is trying to squelch.

[ET]

ET---

Have you ever compared the price of individual policies vs. group???

If you did, you would realize how foolish the above sounds! I was in the biz and know what is the program.

The valid alternate would be a large pool health insurance program offered to individuals not wanting insurance from their employer. The bottom line is that insurance is "the sharing of risks." All carriers rate their clients according to their claims history and stated health conditions. Someone looking for cheap coverage who has massive health issues is not seeking insurance---but cheap discounts.

I am confident a nationalized public program could be accomplished----but not a long as Doctors and Big Pharma want their high income!

I am aware of the group vs individual price differences. Those price differences exist for a number of reasons, but a large factor is that there is not enough competition for individual insurance policies. 85% of workers get their policies through their employer. If you dump several million or tens of millions of consumers back into the health insurance market, you'll see some free market magic as far as premiums. Also, it doesn't health insurance competition that health insurance companies cannot sell insurance across state lines.

It's definitely not a simple thing. It wouldn't do much good to put everybody on their own health insurance (like their car, home, life) if competition couldn't be extended over state lines.

[ET]

So much fuss over someone calling someone else a name.....but when a person actually treats a woman like a slut, we end up having a group formed by the name of moveon.org to, well, move on and have a whole cadre of supporters telling us that it's over, he's apologized and making a bigger deal of it than we should, even though there are national security implications if the wrong people found out and took advantage of the situation. Anybody wish to recall the terms used to describe the women who accused Clinton of indiscretions?

It's also quite amusing to read the comments sections of local newspapers, USAToday and just about any other news source. For people so "outraged" at the language Limbaugh used....well, they aren't exactly the champions of civil discourse.

Of course, for all the indignation that arises over this matter, Michelle Malkin talks from personal experience: The War on Conservative Women. A few threads here (often started by Chris) documenting "family values" failures of the right. I don't believe I've noticed any about the lack of civil discourse from the left directed against conservative women and, for that matter, conservative blacks.

[Cathy]

So much fuss over someone calling someone else a name.....but when a person actually treats a woman like a slut, we end up having a group formed by the name of moveon.org to, well, move on and have a whole cadre of supporters telling us that it's over, he's apologized and making a bigger deal of it than we should, even though there are national security implications if the wrong people found out and took advantage of the situation. Anybody wish to recall the terms used to describe the women who accused Clinton of indiscretions?

It's also quite amusing to read the comments sections of local newspapers, USAToday and just about any other news source. For people so "outraged" at the language Limbaugh used....well, they aren't exactly the champions of civil discourse.

Of course, for all the indignation that arises over this matter, Michelle Malkin talks from personal experience: The War on Conservative Women. A few threads here (often started by Chris) documenting "family values" failures of the right. I don't believe I've noticed any about the lack of civil discourse from the left directed against conservative women and, for that matter, conservative blacks.

ET do you care to find for me a quote by a liberal public figure with a regular radio/TV platform that so impugned the reputation of a woman who is not a public figure. And when you find that compare it to some of the things that have not been repeated here. Limbaugh talked about Fluke for three days in a row. First of all his words were not pertinent to what she said. Second she does not have the history of maintaining a web sight (called by another conservative) "chock full of repugnant conservative smears" or liberal smears. Malkin probably appreciates a smear that would bring more people to her site.

1) Limbaugh's attacks are not pertinent to Ms Fluke's testimony.
2) His attacks were carried out over three days and were vile and showed his own very base nature which we have, unfortunately, been privy to in the past.
3) She is not a public figure. His attacks were unprecedented in severity and vile sexual content for anyone attacking a non public figure from a broadcast bully pulpit.

I have seen some pretty bad comments by private citizens on both sides. I don't know how anyone can control that and I don't know what it has to do with Limbaugh's remarks and your response to them.

"Not the words I would have chosen" In other words I agree with the overall message? What a bankrupt response! The overall message was vile. Read George Will's response.

Women are being galvanized by these responses.

ET do you believe Limbaugh's behavior was repugnant or not. Do you support Limbaugh and feel he has a right to say such vile things about a private citizen? Or ET do you want to say you agree with Limbaugh?

[Haruo]

My guess is that Limbaugh has cost the opponent of Obama more than the LDS connection. The people who were not upset by his comments were already in the pocket of whoever stood against the incumbent, whereas this sort of thing has the real potential to turn some fence-sitters into Obama voters, I think.