Oddly enough, Rush hasn't spent nearly as much time ranting about how health plans shouldn't cover Viagra.  One wonders why.

Allons-y!

Does anyone object to Viagra for religious reasons, or are you one of the ignorant/disingenuous liberals I was talking about?

Does anyone object to Viagra for religious reasons, or are you one of the ignorant/disingenuous liberals I was talking about?

"So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch."

Did I miss something about religion in there?  Year I realize that the overall context of the debate has to do with religion, but Rush himself just seems like he's out to shame some sluts.  He's not making an argument that has to do with religion, it's all about "If I'm paying..." "let's see your tits" (a bargain I'm sure he's pretty familiar with, which is probably why it popped to mind so readily for him).  So, if I'm paying for Mr. Limbaugh's Viagra, I think he should have to post cock pictures online for all the fags in San Francisco to mock - fair bargain?

Allons-y!

So, if I'm paying for Mr. Limbaugh's Viagra...

Maybe I'm missing something, which is extremely likely since I haven't been paying attention, but isn't the mandate being discussed a requirement that companies offer an employee health insurance plan that includes birth control? And the employee then pays for that insurance plan out of their own pocket? If that is the case, then no one is being forced to pay for horny young college students' birth control or dirty old men's Viagra.

...companies offer an employee health insurance plan that includes birth control? And the employee then pays for that insurance plan out of their own pocket?

Traditionalist religions don't object to male sexuality, only female sexuality.

Say, you wouldn't be one of those self-delusional/ self-congratulatory "conservatives" I've been reading about, eh? Yeah, I thought so.

Traditionalist religions don't object to male sexuality, only female sexuality

All traditional religions I can think of think men should rule over women. In consequence, e.g., if women were caught in adultery, they were killed, but if men were caught, everyone winked.

And things haven't changed all that much, have they? "Ms. Fluke, you slut!" Obvious attack. "Rush Limbaugh, you slut!" He would be proud, wouldn't he?

For men, in most cases, you should use a derogatory term implying they are sodomites. Like "Limbaugh is a fat loudmouth junky <insert term here> who married his HS math teacher. What does that tell you about his mommy issues? What sort of relationship did he have while in HS? Married 4 times, that makes 3 trophy wives who tend to marry for money and so are no more than live in hookers." And so on. Really now, anyone who hangs out on the internet could do as well or better than what I just wrote.

...anyone who hangs out on the internet could do as well or better than what I just wrote

"That was novy" not even attempting to insult Rush Limbaugh or his TnT dittoheads and apologists, although like their smarmy patron saint they live to be insulting themselves. Oh, to be half as wonderful as you and Rush!

What I hoped I was saying was that when women get accused of being sexual, people consider it insulting, while when men get accused of being sexual, they feel proud. Obviously, better insults of Limbaugh would be available than that he had too much sex.

He could be referred to as a woman hating gelding.

How about "Rush Limbaugh has had so much sex his fingers have callouses."

Well given the state of "religion" in America, it's not surprising they don't.  

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

Has anyone been demanding a government mandate that health plans cover Viagra?

I don't say that facetiously.  Prior to the new regulation, did most plans provide prescription medication with no co-pay?  Does this new mandate decree no co-pay for all prescriptions or is birth control a special case?

(If the answer to the second question is "yes", then I think that's stupid, but concede that the Left might have some ground to stand on.  If the answer to the second question is "no", then I think the Left, while winning the PR battle, is being patently absurd.)

Preventative services and drugs are covered with no co-pay.  Viagra is unlikely to be offered with no co-pay, but I believe will likely be covered under the prescription plan.  So, your point is largely correct, but I will point out that my bringing up Viagra was in the context of Rush's specific quote and not out of a general desire to draw an equivalence between Viagra and birth control pills.  Since Rush was complaining about paying to make it easier for someone else to have sex, I think in that limited sense the Viagra comparison holds, since even if Viagra does have a co-pay, the fact that it's covered at all means that we're "paying for it" (even if not as much as we'd be paying for the pill.

Allons-y!

Got it.  That makes sense.

It was a direct, pointed attack on most (secular) voting-aged American women, almost all of whom have used some form of ("artificial") birth control at one time or another. Rush and his (male) followers don't seem to understand that women can and do vote, and that dissing them wholesale may have unpleasant political consequences. Please don't misunderstand, I do appreciate that Republicans and some of their most charismatic spokesmen seem not to want any non-white, non-male, non-puritan votes this year. I didn't want them to win anyway.

Maybe Rush doesn't want to ban birth control, but lots of women who might have voted Republican will hate him for what he said, and take him at his word that right-wing Republicans think that women who use birth control should appropriately be called sluts and prostitutes. Since so many right-wing Republicans actually DO want to ban birth control, it will serve those [Republicans who have nodded and winked at this type of talk] that don't [want to ban it, or don't care about birth control at all] right to be thought of as anti-birth control anyway. Like Rush. Like you, if you choose to confute hate speech with "humour".

and take him at his word that right-wing Republicans think that women who use birth control should appropriately be called sluts and prostitutes

Not that it makes it more appropriate, but he said that women who want to use birth control paid for by somebody else are sluts.  (It doesn't even make sense, following the logic of the old joke that can manage to offend both genders: "A slut will have sex with anyone, a whore will have sex with anyone for money, and a bitch will have sex with anyone but you.")

...he said that women who want to use birth control paid for by somebody else are sluts

Honestly, I'm not taking Rush's side on this, but that kind of threw me off as well. Birth control is what like $40 a month? So that's like $480 a year. Where the hell does other $520 come from? Are you really buying that many condoms?

Maybe she's including the cost of lube.

Haha nice

Neither you nor he have no idea what contraception costs, I guess.

Or lube, for that matter.

eh, I find the $1k figure puzzling as well.  Retail from a legit online pharmacy for one of the more common pill formulations is about $40 a month, and that seems about right for what my impression of brick and mortar stores charge as well.  I guess that maybe they're including the cost of an OB/GYN workup, but that shouldn't be more than $150 or $200 at most.

Allons-y!

If bare minimum prices for gynecological care and birth control, as you have calculated them, result in ordinary average expenditure of about $650 to $700, with no health complications of any kind to attend to and no special tests needed for any diagnostic purposes, it wouldn't take very much effort to find someone (perhaps millions of someones) whose average yearly expenditures on gynecological treatment and birth control would exceed $1,000.

Saying that all such women were having too much sex, as Rush did, when amount of sexual activity has no bearing on costs of medical care or of birth control (with most forms of birth control), intentionally misrepresents reality.

I'm with you on all that, I just think she could have framed her argument better if she'd used more average figures.  

Allons-y!

Her employer should also be required to cover the cost of her lattes. With no co-pay.

"[H]er employer"? You mean her university? She'll be in DC anyway, so she could always get her lattes at Obama's White House.

What about Yasmin?
Using your online pharmacy link, I found Yasmin costs $86 for 28 pills, and even the generic costs $72.  And of course remember that 28 pills does not equal a month, so you actually have to multiply by 13 instead of 12.  So Yasmin is about $1118/year and the generic is about $936/year.  Now I'm not going to debate how a woman ends up taking one birth control instead of another, but these numbers are obviously possible.

-your resident female (you forgot I was here, didn't you?)

Birth control pills cost $9 per month at the Target 3 miles from the Georgetown campus. That's with no copay, no insurance.

A better question is whether anything Ms. Fluke "testified" about was truthful.

Not all "birth control pills" can/ should be given to all patients, otherwise gynecological visits and prescriptions would be unnecessary.

Does your wife use $9 birth control pills?  

Not all "birth control pills" can/ should be given to all patients, otherwise gynecological visits and prescriptions would be unnecessary

Does your wife use $9 birth control pills?

No, my mom wore combat boots.

Not all "birth control pills" can/ should be given to all patients, otherwise gynecological visits and prescriptions would be unnecessary

Does your wife use $9 birth control pills?

No, my mom wore combat boots.

It's curious neither you, nor the other Canadian, have mentioned the fact that Canada's National Health service doesn't provide "free" birth control for all women, particularly given how emotional both of you are about it.

Oh, stop it already:

"While American bishops oppose the imposition of mandates to provide insurance for contraception, Canada's single-payer medicare system already makes taxpayers -- Catholic and non-Catholic alike --  fund abortion on demand, even if Catholic hospitals are not forced to perform them. Canadian taxpayers do not pay for all contraception, though family physician Dr. Barbara Powell said birth control pills and other contraceptive services are provided to women on social assistance, and are available free through many municipal clinics. Many doctors hand out free samples. 'Any resourceful woman in Ontario can obtain free contraception,' she said."

"birth control pills and other contraceptive services are provided to women on social assistance"

The Obama HHS mandate is for employer provided insurance, meaning "free" birth control for women who have the means to purchase it for themselves.

"Any resourceful woman in Ontario can obtain free contraception,' she said."

That's true in America, too. Obviously Sandra Fluke isn't resourceful.

In Canada, getting birth control pills involves what you would call co-pay. We pay something, but not full price. People who can't afford to pay don't really have to. (Let's not even talk about abortion.)

Folks like you would call that Socialism. Do you really want to argue that Canadian health care should be considered more socially conservative than what Obama wants? Really?

A co-pay? You mean like women with insurance in the US have?

"Folks like you would call that Socialism"

I call it an outrage Canadian women are being denied birth control. A co-pay is denying women birth control. A co-pay is the equivalent of putting a barb wire fence around the vagina. Why aren't you and hockey head outraged? You are both so passionate about the situation here.

You call keta "hockey head" but you have no cute toss-off term of derision for me? One of my Jewish friends tells me that I should now compare myself to (or even identify with?) "chopped liver". [Do I remind you of chopped liver? Have you ever tasted chopped liver? It sounds horrible.]

Maybe I've accused you unfairly, though. Maybe you have used toss-off term(s) of derision for me elsewhere on TnT, but I just haven't run across them yet. Links?

Besides jackass? I think I once described a pretentiously stupid comment by some other posters as being "novyesque".

Excellent. So hockey head and jackass get to represent Canada here, at least for you. I feel better.

But I seem to remember several other Canadians, especially British Columbians, on this board. What happened to them?

How worked up can I really get about Canadian health care? I love it.

[In my mom's day, pills were free and/or unavailable. You couldn't get them for $9/pack at Target in Minsk. And if you could, you wouldn't have been able to afford them.]

Which would be yet another example of 21st century Republican anti-Science in action. Except for condoms, which don't even work as reliably as most other forms of birth control, how much sex you have doesn't have any effect on pricing of birth control. You know that as well as anyone else here.

That hasn't stopped you from repeating this obvious canard, of course, because like most conservatives these days, you have little regard or use for facts. You say what feels good, and if anyone notices that you have effectively lied, you just repeat yourself and hope that what you say three times becomes true.

I'll remind you what your scientific opinions seem worth to me, with reference to this discussion, when next you need to jump in and defend Alf for his scientific accuracy when he argues for white supremacy.

Except for condoms, which don't even work as reliably as most other forms of birth control

Link?

Sorry. I thought this was common knowledge.

This is not a scientific discussion. Nor am I a conservative.

If I had lied, "effectively" or otherwise, you should be able to explain the lie.

Any discussion where people assert that people who spend more money on birth control must be having more sex than others "is not a scientific discussion", for sure.

Shall I start calling you "right-wing" instead of conservative?

If this had all been about money, Rush would have called Fluke "Socialist", "Communist", "Big Spender". What did he actually call her? "Slut". "Prostitute".

You can't even figure out whether "[i]t was a direct pointed attack on a person in politics" or some sort of joke, as you claimed at first. I go with your second explanation: it was increasingly-typical right-wing slander against people you don't like. Funny, my arse. Intended to injure, and then when it does injure, your sort hides behind smiles and disingenuous lies. GOP SOP, if you will.

Right-wing politics in America has been in process of producing mostly poisonous fumes for some time. Anger and slander at almost everyone (outside your club). Conspiracies about everything. Made-up (and outright false) "facts" about almost everything. No women, blacks, Hispanics, urbanites, or secular Americans need apply to your patriotic coalition. We'll see where this all leads you.

In 20 years, I predict history won't be on your side. And you (and your collection of political colleagues, including religious nuts of all flavours, even as you claim personal atheism) will have deserved and earned it by your undisguised contempt for most other people. Ebenezer Scrooge thought he was cool too when he responded to calls for humanity with "Humbug". We'll see how things turn out when you grow up.

You can't even figure out whether "[i]t was a direct pointed attack on a person in politics" or some sort of joke...

In 20 years, I predict history won't be on your side

It was so obviously not funny, to Rush or to anyone else, that your assertion just falls into "say it three times and it becomes true" territory. "Pointed attacks" seldom tickle many funny bones except yours.

Definitely not whatever side New Jersey Democrats would be on. You ceaselessly shill for right-wingers here. That makes you right-wing in my book regardless of what you call yourself.

So, you now consider CSICOP "liberal"? Do you consider "rationalism" and "atheism" liberal too?

Maybe he's a neo-Nazi. Maybe neo-Nazis coined the "non-judgemental" term "sex worker". Maybe neo-Nazis organize those "Slut Walks".

Most outspoken atheists are liberals. If you mention right wing atheists to them, they get uneasy.

Usually you and Zyx can be counted on to hate anything that you label "liberal". I thought you liked CSICOP and I thought you were atheist, so I figured you wouldn't call that organisation or that form of thought "liberal". I was plainly wrong.

That was an obviously liberal opinion.

And I thought I was liberal. Oh, well.

Right-wing Atheist is just another word for Wall Street Banker or Ex-Marine.

There has been no effort to ban birth control. A month ago the Obama administration decided that women with employer provided insurance should get "free" birth control, and the brainless left wing herd immediately decided that any exemptions to this unnecessary and inefficient policy is an infringement of women's rights. The Left is unable to tolerate anyone who dissents from its morality.

"There has been no effort to ban birth control" because there would be more political support for legalising heroin in America than there would be for criminalising birth control. People who think of birth control as immoral, like Santorum, like Rush, and like Pope Benedict XVI and his bishops, would have to spend lots of time changing opinions to have any chance of changing either American laws or American customs.

That process of trying to change opinions has already begun in earnest. Sex with no possibility of pregnancy offends God, says one of Republicans' top two candidates for president; women who use birth control have lots of sex, which makes them sluts and prostitutes, says charismatic right-wing bloviator; and "freedom of religion" has become another way of saying don't interfere with how we treat our women.

And so Obama, quite sensibly, picked his fight over this social issue rather than, say, gay marriage or medical marijuana or something more genuinely controversial. And that naturally perturbs those social conservatives that wish their side had picked its fight better.  

Point taken.

This whole discussion is a sideline to the fact that no one should be taking the pill. It's an exceptionally dangerous pharmaceutical with serious long term medical implications for the woman and her off spring if/when she chooses to. It's more like fluoride in the water to me -- no informed, intelligent upper middle class woman takes the pill. No one I've ever dated over the long term has and I would not want a significant long term relationship with a woman who did. Liberals continue to show how easily they are bought into the rising corporate social structure with a few "free" social rights.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Is this some kind of joke?  It seems sincere but then there's the part about fluoride so I just don't know anymore.

Also I was apparently mistaken twice in my other post- I had you confused with a "no social spending" poster and meant to say "company" instead of "executive," but that's more semantics than anything.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

no informed, intelligent upper middle class woman takes the pill.

I would describe every woman I've ever dated as informed, intelligent, and middle or upper middle class.  Every one of them was or is on the pill or the patch (not sure if there's a better name for that, but it's roughly analogous to the pill, just with a greater hormone release).  Several of them were medical doctors (perhaps that indicates they're in Big Pharma's pocket and willing to sacrifice themselves to support that master?) and almost certainly had more complete information about the product than the general population; they're well aware of any downsides of the use and have judged them to be outweighed by the benefits.  What contraceptive method do you recommend?

Yeah, my sample doesn't support thefadd's claim either.  Or maybe my girlfriends were all stupid, lower class sluts by thefadd's standards?

no sluts are always high class

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

I think you answered your own question

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

???

My question may have seemed facetious, but it wasn't intended that way.  I'm curious as to what, if any, contraceptive methods you promote since hormonal (or is it just the pill?) methods seem so bad to you.  Barriers?  Rhythm method?  Something else entirely?

The money spent on those government programs is paltry. I'm not sure why you would think I'd be opposed to any of them. I've been on food stamps myself. It's a great program. Personally, I'd probably expand it.

I should be surprised given your myopic approach to the topic but do you really think it's the insurance executive who pays?

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Fuck I hate Dane Cook.

I didn't notice you chortling over Rush's "joke".

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

The first I'd heard of or seen Dane Cook was when his "In the Round" show aired on TV. We watched for a while, then I turned to my wife and said that this guy came off like a youth pastor with pantheon of personal demons who's awkwardly trying really hard to dress and talk like the kids, and who's going to start telling us HOW AWESOME God is. Another 5-10 minutes into his routine, Cook launched into a bit about how annoying atheists are. Now that was hilarious!

estrogen or progesterone, active ingredients in what we call birth control pills

ingredients better found naturally outside of a costly pharmaceutical but don't mind the democratic cronyism.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Maybe so.

Huh. I would've thought that fluoride-free homeopathic tinctures of estrogen would cost more than birth control pills.

Fluke has been a professional activist since she graduate from Cornell in 2003. Democrats could have gotten doctors to testify, but many doctors would be unwilling to follow a pre-arranged script, or tell fabricated stories like Fluke did. It's comical how after the sham nature of this episode is exposed, you just keep shilling harder (why is a Canadian such a toady shill for Democrats?). I think you (and a lot of liberals), enjoy being manipulated.

We have two reasons to think Fluke must have been extremely effective, as professional activists go. First, she was chosen to testify by Dems in preference to countless licensed attorneys who would certainly have been able and willing to "follow a pre-arranged script". Second, she suckered one of America's most gifted propagandists into looking so bad that he harmed his party and himself (professionally).

Way too late to help Limbaugh or Republicans generally recover from this disgraceful episode that has alienated even conservative women, you demand points for "the sham nature of this episode", as if Republicans haven't played similar games for decades and as if Fluke's political activism somehow justified calling her "slut" and "prostitute". (Rush already tried this approach. If it had worked, he wouldn't have apologised.)

As usual when you use words like "comical", you sound angry and contemptuous rather than amused. "Know thyself" much?

U.S. politics usually seems more exciting than Canadian politics. Why? More at stake internationally, more intensity and polarisation, livelier and more mediagenic/ charismatic politicians, cutting edge issues, and much more extreme problems. (America: Nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there.) So we watch your stuff as much as we watch our own (like you would watch soaps operas, or train wrecks). Since most Canadians (like most Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, and Irish) would be more comfortable on America's left than on its right, we tend to root for your Democrats, even though Democrats themselves look pretty right-wing to most of us.

You never cared about this until you were told to. You never even noticed women in Canada don't have a "right" to "free" birth control. You and the other Canadian should be out protesting the fact that your second rate medical care system "discriminates" against women. Occupy the hockey rinks.

"As usual when you use words like "comical", you sound angry and contemptuous rather than amused."

As usual, you have reading comprehension problems.

You only seem to resent political strategising when Democrats and/or Liberals do it. If Republicans and/or right-wingers gain some political advantage by saying or doing something too clever by half, you can be counted on to gloat.

Have you seen a photograph of Ms. Fluke?

Yes.

Lesbians...

[sarcasm] Not only was Fluke appropriately called "slut" and "prostitute", she should also have been called "Lesbian", too! Did you hear her story about her "friend"? (Leer, wink, leer, wink.) Democrats and homosexualists go hand-in-hand! [/sarcasm]

Right-wingers have counted on unsupported but ever-repeated slander against their enemies for 60 years. Now their slanders have become so obvious and so self-serving that they no longer seem to work as they once did. Worse, they still engage in slander, only now against one another too.

Please, tell us again all about your New Jersey Democrat friends while you service Rush's memory here on TnT.

Do you believe that her "testimony" was 100% truthful?

I think it more likely that her testimony was 100% truthful than that she has too much lesbian sex.

Do you believe that her "testimony" was 100% truthful?

I think it more likely that her testimony was 100% truthful than that she has too much lesbian sex.

Do you believe that her "testimony" was 100% truthful?

I think it more likely that her testimony was 100% truthful than that she has too much lesbian sex.

What part of her testimony do you think was less than 100% truthful? That she had lesbian friends? That she was lesbian herself?

When you can figure out what you mean to accuse her of, and after I've read her testimony, which I haven't so far because I really don't care what she said, we can try this again. And again.

Do you believe that Fluke was Lesbian?

Or does her claim to know someone attending her Catholic university who engages in Lesbianism strike you as palpably false?

Her claim that birth control costs $1,000 per year causes me to doubt everything she said.

I can barely believe you answered my question. Thanks, I guess.

If some women pay $89 per month for birth control (which would be over $1,000 per year by itself, without factoring in paying doctors or any medical tests deemed necessary or useful) and some pay $9 at Target (although definitely not your wife or my mother), let's say average would be around $49. Basically, that means that minimum cost for ordinary women with no special medical problems might be around $800 per year. Throw in one extra doctor visit or one extra medical test and we've hit $1,000.

So if that was what you've got, we can cordially agree to disagree.

I may think that your opinion about Fluke and her testimony has as much substance as thinking that Andy Breitbart's college videos of Obama will derail his reelection campaign, but since you were open enough to say something definitive, I feel like I owe you my real answer to your question, regardless of what you plan to do with it.

I think that probably most adults have given testimony in court or to some public hearing or committee at one time or another. I know I have. When I find myself being put in that position, I tend to think long and hard well in advance about how I will answer certain kinds of questions, so as to make my side look as good as possible without engaging in any outright provable lying. Nothing can discredit and dishonour your side quicker than false testimony (which in some cases could land you in jail, if egregious enough).

If I would prepare before giving testimony, I figure Fluke did too. In addition, I figure that she was prepped by at least one but possibly as many as five or ten people for weeks prior to testifying. So, while I very much doubt that anything she said was outright false (if she claimed to have some "friend" in particular straits, don't you think Democrats could find her that perfect "friend", as needed?), I feel equally confident that everything she said was slanted as much as possible to make her team look "concerned" and Republicans look "heartless". If we had paid as much attention to people testifying at those Republican Congressional hearings across town as we had to Fluke, we would have heard similarly prepared and self-serving testimony, but Rush Limbaugh put paid to that one, didn't he?

Finally, I would like to add that, if Fluke takes sensible advantage of her opportunity, Rush Limbaugh has given her gifts that may keep on giving for years to come. She goes to Georgetown Law School, so she knows it as well as anyone.

I can't believe those big meanie NFL folks wouldn't let Rush become part owner of a team!

As I said at that time, it's always nice to see a douche bag get his just desserts.

Rush Limbaugh's business has always been selling anger, derision, and hate. Mostly he gets away with it, which was what made this Fluke episode even more surprising to me. How could he have lost dozens of advertisers over these remarks and never lost any over some of his other earlier remarks? Limbaugh was plainly surprised too.

I doubt Clear Channel cares about anything more than profits, even though it has openly leaned right for years. Rush has made them lots of money and been right-wing; win-win. But if he started losing them money, Capitalism First would rear its ugly head.