Haruo wrote:Just wondering if Rush's own drugs are covered by his insurance.
Gene Scarborough wrote:I think Limbaugh is like the preacher ranting about sex from the pulpit---trying to cover his own perversions and addictions.
Tim Bonney wrote:Ed Pettibone wrote: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.
Neil Heath wrote: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!
Chris wrote:Are Limbaugh's pain meds paid for out-of-pocket....or with insurance his employer provides? Just wondering.
ET wrote:Neil Heath wrote: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=fpbChris wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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
Haruo wrote: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 wrote: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!
ET wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Cathy and 1 guest