Rush Limbaugh And Sandra Fluke

[Remy LaCroix]

I'm not reading anything from the previous pages.

It would be a pretty cool bill for pot smokers if the government mandated that insurance companies were forced to cover marijuana for recreational use, too.

cool =/= good.

Marijuana has whatever the hell medicinal benefits it has (I don't recall them off the top of my head). Therefore, insurance companies should pay for huge amounts of it to be used daily.

Two completely different subjects. You clearly don't know anything about medical marijuana, so just stop.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

It would be a pretty cool bill for pot smokers if the government mandated that insurance companies were forced to cover marijuana for recreational use, too.

cool =/= good.

To say that birth control is used strictly for recreational use is

1. disgustingly presumptuous
2. incredibly offensive
3. flat out wrong

And plus, medical marijuana is prescribed in a bunch of states, so what was the point you were even trying to make there?

Yes. Because policyholders shouldn't have to spend a dime more to pay for a drug to be used recreationally.

So people with legitimate medical problems should suffer because other people will use it recreationally? Why do you even care, anyway?

Not at all. It would make it more expensive for everyone, because health insurance would cost even more money, because the insurance c ompanies need to cover the added cost of paying for a drug to be taken recreationally, which is what everyone here is arguing.

As opposed to the two drugs you discussed that could be used for the problems birth control solves? (Sorry, I can't be bothered to look through the thread again, but I'm pretty sure it was you who covered the other drugs that could be used to solve female reproductive issues).

Why should I stop when I'm the only one using logic?

This isn't an argument of logic, though. You're basing your arguments on assumptions, faulty information, and being a misogynist.

Do you want me to dig up an old thread that you posted in, then reply to your post that you had already answered?

I understand not wanting to look through 150 posts to look for an answer, so I would have no problem taking 15 seconds to answer your questions.

The population would pay for it because the insurance companies will offset the cost by raising their rates.

Please give me a source, with solid numbers, that proves that. How much do you think insurance premiums would increase because of $50 for 30 pills a month?

Just like I'm right here.

Did you get what I was trying to say, or...

When did I say it doesn't do that. Never. I never said that the pills don't help people with those legitimate medical issues.

So then what's your problem with allowing birth control onto insurance policies? You're acknowledging the fact that these are helpful pills that serve many different purposes. I'm beginning to not understand your argument here...

What I've said (again, for the ten thousandth time) is that if you have ovarian cancer, insurance should pay for it. When you have issues with periods, insurance should pay for it to be used for that sole purpose (last I checked periods do not last every day). If you are trying to have unprotected sex without pregnancy, you're on your own.

So insurance should only cover you once you GET ovarian cancer? You don't agree with preventative care? Also, do you not understand how birth control pills work? You need to take a lot of them to have an effect on your period. You don't take them when your period starts. You take them all month.

You have a profound misunderstanding of female health.

 

[Loveless]

Let's switch this around for a moment and see if we can get anywhere from another view.

You have a married couple, they're pretty poor and the female is allergic to birth control pills or reacts badly. They want a child one day but obviously can't afford one right now so sterilisation (I'll be very interested if that's covered by medical insurance) it out of the question.
So what does this couple do? Condoms break, abstinence is unnacceptable (only virgins will argue otherwise).Male Pill?

Your options are

1. Pay $3000 a year to have sex with your wife (as well the medical insurance that doesn't cover it)
2. Risk it and have to pay for a child for the next 18 years
3. No sex with your wife

Oh and let's add that No2 and No3 make you feel fucking awful for 25% of the time

Davi, Stormy, pick one or give an alternative. This is exactly the choice you want women to have.

 

[Remix]

Actually, the definition of ****e includes someone who just has promiscuous sex. transfer of money or services not required. I already posted the very definition of the word ****e, but you obviously cannot read.

1) a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute

Your move, chuckles.

I have always referred to the fact that they shouldn't be on Birth Control, rather they should be on a separate product marketed for, and designed for an actual medicinal purpose, not anti-preggo pills.

Let me put this in a way you can understand, using different products.

You are saying that this product can't be used because it's an "anti preggo drug".

Meanwhile this product is OK because it isn't.

However they are exactly the same drug.

As I said, why are they on BIRTH CONTROL? They should be on polycystic ovarian and acne syndrome control.

For the same reason that some anti depressants can be used to treat neuropathic pain. They work.

Ok time for a lecture on how COC works. COC is short for "Combined Oral Contraception" and it contains two drugs. A synthetic Oestrogen, and a Synthetic progestrogen. These are "female sex hormones" and naturally the levels of each changes in accordance with the menstral cycle (go look that up yourself). COC acts by changing the hormone levels in such a way that no egg is released and thereby preventing conception. However, females also have testosterone (the "male sex hormone") and an imballance in the female:male sex hormone ratio is the root cause of both of those conditions. Adding on female hormones corrects the imballance.

Again, the government seems to feel that reproduction is something that should be allowed, not prevented. Hence why they allow viagra, and not birth control.

And in England, a country with an actual government funded healthcare is the opposite. Realising that one drug reduces costs in the long run (pregnancy = expensive to pay for, kids= expensive to pay for. Better pregnancy control = fewer kids = less expensive. And allowing for better family planning is also good for the wellbeing of the child), enables better control of women's health and has legitimate non reproductive uses.

Let me out it this way. The pill has valid uses for things other than pregnancy. How many doctors are really going to follow that if they think it is in the best interests of the patient not to? Slim to none. You'll just have them prescribing the drug lisenced for polycystic ovaries for birth control but claiming it's for the correct usage.

No, VIAGRA was designed for boner-giving.

No it wasn't. It was designed to treat hypertension and angina. However, in phase I clinical trials the volunteers reported the side effect that has become its main use. Stormy, you are wrong on this.

Maybe whatever the chemical composition that Viagra is was originally developed as a possible Blood Vessel Dialator,

It gives you boners by dilating the blood vessels on the penis.

but Viagra is, was, and always has been marketed and approved as a boner-giver, and that's all. I do not ever recall seeing an ad for Viagra the Brood Vessel Dialator. And since there's a medical condition that Viagra was marketed and approved for, it is covered by insurance. Since BIRTH CONTROL isn't a medical condition, it isn't approved.

You're right, because Phizer realised that they'd make a lot more money that way AND get to keep it in patent (which is a big deal for drug companies). Pregnancy control may not be a medical condition (I cannot be arsed to argue symantics), however pregnancy is. And if we accept that drugs designed to induce pregnancy are legitimate medical uses, then surely pregnancy prophylaxis is also valid.

yes, as I have already mentioned. It actually is a damn good idea. Market it as HORMONES, USED TO REDUCE PERIODS AND WHATEVER ELSE IT DOES, and insurance pays for enough to help with whatever your health issue is. Be it a week to lighten a period, or more for cancer or whatever. Insurance should not ever pay for a contraceptive, since the contraceptive has one purpose.

Newsflash dumbass, they already do. To doctors. The people who write the damn prescriptions. People who are in intense pain over their periods don't need to be told that Microgynon can help they'll see their doctor who can tell them that.

Also, the treatment for any of the conditions (including pregnancy preention) that use COC is the same.

I however do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand do not. As evidenced by your complete idiocy in the post I've been disecting. Word of advise, don't tell anyone that they don't know what they're talking about unless you know what you're talking about.

No you don't. You just think you do. I'm a fucking pharmacy student. Believe me when I say I know my shit about drugs.

The government/insurance shouldn't pay for everyone to have risk-free sex.

Pregnancy is just one of the many risks of promiscuous sex. There's a whole list of STIs that certainly count as risks.

They should pay to fix a health issue. That's 2 separate issues.

I'd point out the other non-pregnancy prevention things that the exact same drug, taken in the exact same doses can be used for but I've already done that. Repeatedly. So I'll go ahead and say this: pregnancy is a health issue. An unwanted baby is going to have a lower quality of life than one who is planned for (because when planned for the parents would have prepared for the baby and soforth), enable families to limit their size (so they don't have more kids than they can afford), and save the government money in the long run because a woman who isn't pregnant doesn't need to have ultrasounds, doesn't need to have the baby delivered and an unplanned child who isn't born won't ever get sick and need treatment.

Which is why my solution is perfect. It allows for the medicinal use, but not the contraceptive use.

No it's not, because doctors will just use the pill for its "off lisence" use. Because there's no way that a doctor could possibly say "ah yes Ms Doe was suffering from very heavy and painful periods and I decided it was in her best interests to prescribe Microgynon to treat her symptoms. Why yes, I do know that this medication can prevent pregnancies and I informed her about this. We agreed that this would be an acceptable side effect."

As I've said every time I've posted. Again, I give a perfectly good solution, but not a single person is smart enough to understand it.

Damn shame.

No, you're too dumb to realise that you're wrong.

Not really. In fact, you replying to this just proves how fucking stupid you are, and that I already won. I had said pretty much everything I said here, but you are too stupid and short-sighted to notice it.

Learn to read, jackass.

See all those points where I had to correct your lack of knowledge aout the contraceptive pill and Viagra? Those are the bits you're wrong about, Dumbass.

But hey, what would I know about this? I only live in a country with healthcare paid for by the government and study drugs from a biological and chemical standpoint as well as from their clinical standpoint at degree level.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I don't know the particulars of the actual issue, so here's what I say...

-No, I don't want to pay for another person's birth control. Is that what's happening? I don't believe so, at least not directly. In general, I'm opposed to the idea.

-You don't have to agree with this Fluke woman because Rush Limbaugh is an asshole, and an asshole is exactly what he is.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Clearly the Big Uterus Lobby is taking over DC.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

-No, I don't want to pay for another person's birth control. Is that what's happening? I don't believe so, at least not directly. In general, I'm opposed to the idea.

The plan calls for a government mandate (I think) for birth control on basic employee health insurance. The taxpayers have nothing to do with it.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

The plan calls for a government mandate (I think) for birth control on basic employee health insurance. The taxpayers have nothing to do with it.

True (I read up on what we're talking about). Then again, there is some truth to the idea of that cost being put back on the consumer (raising premiums and so forth). That's why, earlier, I said it wasn't coming directly from the taxpayer.

 

[Davi323]

Let's switch this around for a moment and see if we can get anywhere from another view.

You have a married couple, they're pretty poor and the female is allergic to birth control pills or reacts badly. They want a child one day but obviously can't afford one right now so sterilisation (I'll be very interested if that's covered by medical insurance) it out of the question.
So what does this couple do? Condoms break, abstinence is unnacceptable (only virgins will argue otherwise).Male Pill?

Your options are

1. Pay $3000 a year to have sex with your wife (as well the medical insurance that doesn't cover it)
2. Risk it and have to pay for a child for the next 18 years
3. No sex with your wife

Oh and let's add that No2 and No3 make you feel fucking awful for 25% of the time

Davi, Stormy, pick one or give an alternative. This is exactly the choice you want women to have.

If she is allergic to the pill, then what should they care if their insurance plan is forced to cover it or not? She can't take it anyway, it's a moot point.

However: They can save up between 500-750 dollars, get an Implanon implant (replaced Norplant) and be able to prevent pregnancy for 3 full years. Assuming the highest end cost, that's 250 dollars a year, or slightly less than 21 dollars a month.

Mirena, an IUD, can cost between 500-800 uninsured, but can last up to 5 years. Again, assuming the highest costs, 160 per year, 13.33 per month.

If those costs are too high, they should look into nearby women's clinics, which should have reduced cost funding available for both options, perhaps even provide those services for no cost at all.

But, if you want to claim that she is allergic to both of those as well, then there is oral sex, anal sex, mutual *********ion, and other non-vaginal intercourse methods that would prevent pregnancy while still allowing sexual gratification. These methods have zero additional financial cost, if they are that hard up for cash.

 

[Remix]

If she is allergic to the pill, then what should they care if their insurance plan is forced to cover it or not? She can't take it anyway, it's a moot point.

But would other forms of contraceptive (like a hypothetical male birth control pill) be on the policy?

However: They can save up between 500-750 dollars, get an Implanon implant (replaced Norplant) and be able to prevent pregnancy for 3 full years. Assuming the highest end cost, that's 250 dollars a year, or slightly less than 21 dollars a month.

That doesn't take into account that one of the common side effects (irregular or absent periods) that shows it's working is also the side effect that it's not working (i.e. getting pregnant). Which is why people who have that implant are advised to have regular pregnancy tests. Which aren't exactly cheap.

Mirena, an IUD, can cost between 500-800 uninsured, but can last up to 5 years. Again, assuming the highest costs, 160 per year, 13.33 per month.

I assume you have female friends. Ask one of them if they'd like one of these:

pushed up through the vagina, past the cervix and into the uterus. Also, there's the cost of pregnancy tests, the IUD getting dislodged, pelvic inflammatory disease (which can render the woman infertile). Also, the string used to pull the thing out can be felt by the man during sex which might cause an issue.

But, if you want to claim that she is allergic to both of those as well, then there is oral sex, anal sex,

Which not every woman is comfortable with. And do you seriously think that a healthcare professional would say "Ah yes Mrs Smith, I'm sorry that we don't have anything that's appropriate for you. But have you tried anal sex instead of vaginal?"

mutual *********ion,

lol.

and other non-vaginal intercourse methods that would prevent pregnancy while still allowing sexual gratification. These methods have zero additional financial cost, if they are that hard up for cash.

except for lube and condoms for anal sex.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Also, IUD's are still pretty risky. My ex got one and it caused her some slight pain/discomfort during some of our more, er, enthusiastic romps in the hay. She still ended up recommending the device to a friend of hers, who didn't take to it well at all as it caused her to bleed heavily not long after installation.

Also, love the costs on those devices.

 

[Loveless]

You're focusing on the details and kind of missing my general point but I'll get to that in a minute

If she is allergic to the pill, then what should they care if their insurance plan is forced to cover it or not? She can't take it anyway, it's a moot point.

Missing my point by breaking what I said down to it's components instead of what I was getting towards but I'll adress it anyway.
It's far from moot, some people don't like being permanently pregant for 25 years.

However: They can save up between 500-750 dollars, get an Implanon implant (replaced Norplant) and be able to prevent pregnancy for 3 full years. Assuming the highest end cost, that's 250 dollars a year, or slightly less than 21 dollars a month.
Mirena, an IUD, can cost between 500-800 uninsured, but can last up to 5 years. Again, assuming the highest costs, 160 per year, 13.33 per month.

So more expensive than your 9 dollar a month plan It's still a $750 down payment that's not covered by insurance.

If those costs are too high

They would be when you're paying medical insurance on top of that

, they should look into nearby women's clinics, which should have reduced cost funding available for both options, perhaps even provide those services for no cost at all.

Interesting, and who pays for these reduced cost services? Is it the taxpayer?

But, if you want to claim that she is allergic to both of those as well, then there is oral sex, anal sex, mutual *********ion, and other non-vaginal intercourse methods that would prevent pregnancy while still allowing sexual gratification. These methods have zero additional financial cost, if they are that hard up for cash.

I lol'd. Apply these options only to your relationship and see how it works out.


Now to get to my actual point, I was trying to give you a construct where the responsibility became switched so you could see things from another view. I'm not surprised you didn't go for it, putting the responsibility right back on the woman. Those 3 choices still exist and I wanted you, as a man, to pick one so that you can see that what you're suggesting is a no-win situation for whoever is taking the responsibility.

 

[Davi323]

You had already excluded condoms since they sometimes break, and there is no male birth conrol pill in existence, as far as I know. You wanted them to be able to reproduce later, so tubal ligation and vasectomies were also off of the table. I mentioned the ones I could think of that still fit within the parameters of your example.

 

[HBK-aholic]

What I've said (again, for the ten thousandth time) is that if you have ovarian cancer, insurance should pay for it. When you have issues with periods, insurance should pay for it to be used for that sole purpose (last I checked periods do not last every day). If you are trying to have unprotected sex without pregnancy, you're on your own.

First, this (And other similar things you've said) more than anything else shows you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the pill. The entire reason it works, is because you take it 21-28 days of the month, depending on the brand. You can't take it for a few days around your period and then stop again - it completely messes up the cycle some women are relying on it to regulate.

(The rest of this post isn't aimed at you specifically.)

Second, you can call them 'Hormone pills' or something similar if it really makes you feel better about it. If Birth Control has such negative connotations for you (Which it shouldn't, really), use another term medical staff use to refer to the medication. It's what they were called when I was prescribed them age 12. (Needless to say, I was not having sex at the time, thus no one was paying for me to have '****e-pills')

Third, the pill isn't solely used to have unprotected sex. It's also a back-up plan. Condoms split, condoms aren't 100% effective. If I want to have sex with my long-term partner (The ONLY person I'd be having sex with) I should be able to do so without the worry of a broken condom meaning we'd have to choose between an unplanned child or abortion.

Fourth, insurance companies pay for a whole host of things that people don't technically 'need' but that make their lives easier, more enjoyable, and less worry-some. Pain medication, for example. Viagra, as has previously been stated. Medication to stop migraines - which I get when I've eaten certain foods I enjoy. Should the insurance not pay for those pills because they're used 'recreationally' - the fun being me eating chocolate? There are a whole host of things insurance pays for that are similar to birth control pills, which leads me to believe there must be some major reason this alone is causing such a fuss. Is it because it's only for women? Because these men want women to have to rely on them for contraception in the form of condoms? Is it nothing to do with gender? And if so, what is the reason they are so different?

Fifth - forgive me for not being an expert on the American healthcare system - don't people, women included, pay into health insurance policies a lot of the time? Wouldn't that mean they ARE paying for their own pills, just in a different way than popping to Rite Aid and buying them over the counter? If so, why is this even an issue?

 

[Loveless]

You had already excluded condoms since they sometimes break, and there is no male birth conrol pill in existence, as far as I know. You wanted them to be able to reproduce later, so tubal ligation and vasectomies were also off of the table. I mentioned the ones I could think of that still fit within the parameters of your example.

It's not so much my example as the simple reality for every couple. What you suggested are options that are more expensive than the pill and the other was funded by the taxpayer, which I'm guessing you object to seeing as that's the whole crux of this matter.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Fifth - forgive me for not being an expert on the American healthcare system - don't people, women included, pay into health insurance policies a lot of the time? Wouldn't that mean they ARE paying for their own pills, just in a different way than popping to Rite Aid and buying them over the counter? If so, why is this even an issue?

This. The employer provides the plan, the employee pays for it. As it is now, women have to also go out and pay for the pills on their own as well if they want/need it. This is what's so stupid about all of this. Certain people are trying to paint this as just looking for a handout, but it's for a medical provision that by all means should be covered in a basic health plan to begin with.

 

[Slyfox696]

If I want to have sex with my long-term partner (The ONLY person I'd be having sex with) I should be able to do so without the worry of a broken condom meaning we'd have to choose between an unplanned child or abortion.

Has KB met him?

 

[klunderbunker]

Has KB met him?

Yep. Nice guy but he spends too much time reviewing bad wrestling shows.

 

[Ty Burna]

Fifth - forgive me for not being an expert on the American healthcare system - don't people, women included, pay into health insurance policies a lot of the time? Wouldn't that mean they ARE paying for their own pills, just in a different way than popping to Rite Aid and buying them over the counter? If so, why is this even an issue?

And we have a winner. Only difference is I pay for my wife and step daughter's pills. And I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. If my insurance company suddenly took Birth Control off the list of covered items, I'm looking at $900 more a year I gotta pay (which I would gladly) for them.

Still is nice that my insurance company does in fact cover the portion they do.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Yep. Nice guy but he spends too much time reviewing bad wrestling shows.

Sounds like rather effective birth control.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Sounds like rather effective birth control.

It is