Rush Limbaugh to student wanting free contraceptives : prostitute.

[Dreamy]

Agree one million percent with the first part, not so much the second. I know two people who know Rush, one who actually worked for him, and both say his radio/TV persona is at least 70% an act, and that you can set your clocks by the "controversies" he creates. I'm inclined to agree with this assessment.

Rush knew exactly what he was getting into when he called her a slut, and I applaud him for his efforts in hurting people's feelings and stirring the pot. But I call him a big fat pussy for caving and apologizing. A true performer sticks with it until the end, not just when his sponsors get squeamish. Fuck Rush.

If what you say is true then his true argument which I believe was a good one was lost in the firestorm his contrived controversy brought to the forefront. I understand that talk jocks have to keep the ratings up but if this is how he has to do it then he truly is not as brilliant as so many of his listeners claim he is.

[Zordar]

I understand that talk jocks have to keep the ratings up but if this is how he has to do it then he truly is not as brilliant as so many of his listeners claim he is.

It's what he's been doing for thirty years! He'd create a new Clinton Controvery every six months in the '90s. More recently, comments while on Monday Night Football, about Terri Schaivo, sluts, etc.

He's a brilliant and skilled performer (well, was), but he's no deep thinker.

[Dreamy]

It's what he's been doing for thirty years! He'd create a new Clinton Controvery every six months in the '90s. More recently, comments while on Monday Night Football, about Terri Schaivo, sluts, etc.

He's a brilliant and skilled performer (well, was), but he's no deep thinker.

I am honestly not a regular Rush listener but you are correct in that he does like the controversy it would seem. I don't fault him on that but I do fault him on his tactic he used with this young woman. I think he missed the mark, it was not clever and it has cost him advertisers. He blew it in my opinion. His losses will exceed his gains.

[vindex]

Pregnancy is a medical condition.

pregnancy has the distinction of being one of the few "medical conditions" that a woman has 100% control over, in regard to whether or not she is ever "has" the "condition". in this way, it's prevention hardly qualifies as something that is in any way related to the preventative medicine that is practiced to help prevent medical conditions that people have incomplete, or almost no control over. as well, to take something that should be such a wonder and blessing, and associate with whatever illness or other other condition people might normally wish to prevent only illustrates that there is a very ass-backwards way of looking at sex and it's natural consequences.

[Lulu]

pregnancy has the distinction of being one of the few "medical conditions" that a woman has 100% control over, in regard to whether or not she is ever "has" the "condition". in this way, it's prevention hardly qualifies as something that is in any way related to the preventative medicine that is practiced to help prevent medical conditions that people have incomplete, or almost no control over. as well, to take something that should be such a wonder and blessing, and associate with whatever illness or other other condition people might normally wish to prevent only illustrates that there is a very ass-backwards way of looking at sex and it's natural consequences.

Lung cancer is 100% preventable. Liver cancer and pancreatitis and gout is 99% preventable. Type 2 diabetes is almost always caused by obesity - something that can be controlled. So do we allow insurance to deny meds for these too, or just the preventative medicine you deem unnecessary? Acne is not an illness and that has plenty of treatments covered by insurance as well.

Also the argument either has to be a) Fluke is asking taxpayers to pay for her birth control (which she was not since she had private school insurance) or b) the Catholic institutions are being forced to provide and cover something they are morally against. Both of these cannot be true since the Catholic church has no way of raising our taxes to cover birth control.

[jwreck]

Lung cancer is not 100% preventable.

[Lulu]

Pregnancy is a medical condition.

As is dysmenorrhea, heavy bleeding, heavy cramps which could have made the majority of birth control pills for these women eligible for coverage under insurance. If an institution has moral issues which prevent them from providing the service that people are paying for, they shouldn't be in that business. Obv if they were unwilling to cover birth control for dysmenorrhea or ovarian cysts, the catholic church was unable to fulfill their obligation of providing comprehensive health care insurance. They should have had a third party provide an optional health coverage and given students a choice in insurance.

You wouldn't have a Jehovah's witness who was a surgeon because they couldn't fulfill their job.

[Lulu]

Lung cancer is not 100% preventable.

The only exception is AT1 disease. Otherwise it's caused by environmental exposure or smoking.

[Lulu]

Oh, there goes AOL dropping their ads.

[optimus]

pregnancy has the distinction of being one of the few "medical conditions" that a woman has 100% control over, in regard to whether or not she is ever "has" the "condition". in this way, it's prevention hardly qualifies as something that is in any way related to the preventative medicine that is practiced to help prevent medical conditions that people have incomplete, or almost no control over. as well, to take something that should be such a wonder and blessing, and associate with whatever illness or other other condition people might normally wish to prevent only illustrates that there is a very ass-backwards way of looking at sex and it's natural consequences.

I agree. Even when women get raped, they still have 100% control over it.

[Zordar]

The only exception is AT1 disease. Otherwise it's caused by environmental exposure or smoking.

Even if it was, people don't always have the power to avoid their environments. Unless they are raped, they do have the power to avoid sex and the unwanted diseases and parasites it creates.

[Lulu]

Even if it was, people don't always have the power to avoid their environments. Unless they are raped, they do have the power to avoid sex and the unwanted diseases and parasites it creates.

Sure they do. They can move or change jobs.

[Zordar]

Sorry, Lulu, but enviro-rape can happen anywhere.

[Lulu]

Sorry, Lulu, but enviro-rape can happen anywhere.

It's no more ridiculous than what I've read here the past week. I'm being absurd to make fun of the absurdity... hurr.

[kellyb]

pregnancy has the distinction of being one of the few "medical conditions" that a woman has 100% control over, in regard to whether or not she is ever "has" the "condition". in this way, it's prevention hardly qualifies as something that is in any way related to the preventative medicine that is practiced to help prevent medical conditions that people have incomplete, or almost no control over. as well, to take something that should be such a wonder and blessing, and associate with whatever illness or other other condition people might normally wish to prevent only illustrates that there is a very ass-backwards way of looking at sex and it's natural consequences.

Now you're switching the goalposts.

Yes, pregnancy is preventable - contraception is fairly effective. I suppose you could just demand that married people never have sex, but then be prepared to fork over money for antidepressants and therapy.

[kellyb]

Does anyone else find ALL of the anti-contraception-coverage arguments just... completely outlandish?

I'm usually pretty quick to admit when an issue is complex, and that various opposing views can all hold some degree of validity, but I'm just not seeing it here. Like, at all.

[Zordar]

Does anyone else find ALL of the anti-contraception-coverage arguments just... completely outlandish?

Being anti-contraception is a sign of being backwards and intellectually stunted, so of course the arguments have to rely on mythology or other outlandish claims. They don't stand up without G_d propping them up.

I don't have a problem with arguments against paying for other people's contraception, though. I don't mind if insurance covers it, but I really don't care if it doesn't cover it, either.

[optimus]

Do the females here think that condoms for men should be covered as well? Sorry if this has already been covered, I'm way to lazy to read through this thread.

[vindex]

Lung cancer is 100% preventable. Liver cancer and pancreatitis and gout is 99% preventable. Type 2 diabetes is almost always caused by obesity - something that can be controlled. So do we allow insurance to deny meds for these too, or just the preventative medicine you deem unnecessary? Acne is not an illness and that has plenty of treatments covered by insurance as well.

Also the argument either has to be a) Fluke is asking taxpayers to pay for her birth control (which she was not since she had private school insurance) or b) the Catholic institutions are being forced to provide and cover something they are morally against. Both of these cannot be true since the Catholic church has no way of raising our taxes to cover birth control.

the argument does not have to be a or b. the argument is that she wants the support of the government in forcing a private religious institution to include this in the health care that the school provides...which is what i said before.

and the very fact that you declared lung cancer to be 100% preventable speaks volumes. acne, btw, might not be an "illness", but it is a very persistent and painful medical condition that generally has nothing to do with someone's behavior.

[Lulu]

Does anyone else find ALL of the anti-contraception-coverage arguments just... completely outlandish?

I'm usually pretty quick to admit when an issue is complex, and that various opposing views can all hold some degree of validity, but I'm just not seeing it here. Like, at all.

Pretty outlandish.

I'd like to know what the hell Georgetown does with all that insurance money they scam from students? I just checked my insurance - I pay $80/month, my employer matches half so my insurance costs $160/month, $1920/year. That's slightly more than the $1895/year students pay and a little older . My insurance is a PPO - I can go to any specialist w/o referral, chiropractor, dermatology and I get all my medicines covered at tier 1 or tier 2 so I'm never out of pocket more than $20.

Crazy scam those Catholics have going on.