A different way of looking at things...
inlet13
Posts: 1,979
Bob Smith enjoys eating fish and drinking wine, but doesn't enjoy paying for it. The American Medical community says what Bob is doing can be healthy. Bob petitions the federal government to force everyone (including PETA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving) to pay for Bob's meal.
Is this OK?
In that line of thinking, read this...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj
Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate
A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills.
By CATHY CLEAVER RUSE
Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.
I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.
As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.
I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."
When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: "experts" and "victims." The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.
At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown's refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.
Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point.
In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)
What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.
Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.
Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.
Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.
Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in 1989.
Is this OK?
In that line of thinking, read this...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj
Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate
A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills.
By CATHY CLEAVER RUSE
Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.
I'm a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.
As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn't confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different "feel" than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn't used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.
I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."
When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: "experts" and "victims." The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.
At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown's refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.
Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point.
In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That's $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)
What about Rush Limbaugh? I won't defend his use of epithets (for which he's apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn't inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn't like other kinds of "health care." Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that's relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university's insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.
Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.
Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It's nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown's refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.
Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.
Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in 1989.
Here's a new demo called "in the fire":
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
the federal government is not paying for birth control. the insurance companies are paying for it with a co-pay from the patient. this shows a clear lack of understanding of the issue.
birth control is for more than preventing pregnancy. there are medical conditions that are treated with the pill.
people on the right are always saying that government is forcing THEM to pay for other people's health care, in this case the pill, or in your example the wine and fish dinners.... the people that are paying for birth control are the people paying into the insurance plan and the employer who is offering health coverage as a benefit for the employee. insurance paying for birth control is NOT raising anybody's premiums because we are not paying for it for everyone. you know what WILL raise insurance rates for everyone in the insurance group? CHILDBIRTH..it costs thousands and thousands of dollars for prenatal care, delivering the baby, and the care of that child afterwards. also, if you make birth control unavailable, not only will those in the insurance group be paying for that childbirth, but YOU as a taxpayer will potentially be paying for more and more kids on the medicaid roles...you have to pay for one or the other. i would choose the birth control, but that's just me.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh I forgot it's only promiscuous when it's a woman having sex.
with the countless reduced and free clinics across America
for those who financially need help.
We do not have to pay for birth control for those who can afford it.
This has been a democratic smear campaign to make Republicans
appear to be anti women's rights ...
I'm not falling for it.
This is all about freedom and our constitutional rights and that of the Church.
The church can not nor ever should be made to go against it's core beliefs.
Your example fits perfectly by the way ... excellent!
Well for starters, this extends beyond "birth control" and goes into areas like abortion.
Second, re-read it. I didn't say anything about the federal government paying for it. Although, that can happen too, if this gets extended. I said the federal government is forcing organizations (against this concept) to pay for it.... and I meant that they are doing so through new regulations or laws.
Right, so in my example Mothers Against Drunk Driving are forced by the government to pay for Bob's wine. And PETA is forced to pay for Bob eating his fish. Why? Because of the new regulation.
Insurance paying for birth control (and all the other services included here) are without question raising people's premiums. Birth control (and all the other services included here) cost money. So, that money comes from somewhere. If it's covered under the plan, that additional service or good costs the plan money. But, the point on raising premiums is not even the issue here. The issue is whether the government should mandate what private institutions (against something) cover.
Further, I don't see anyone (besides you) arguing that any organization should avoid paying for child birth. On to your point about the evils of child birth for taxpayers, child birth creates a future taxpayer.... so yeh, I completely disagree.
Finally, I'm not, nor is anyone saying one can't or shouldn't use contraception. They are saying you shouldn't force organizations opposed to it (through their own dogma) to fund it. Hence, my example.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Condoms shouldn't be covered either (if the organization is against their use). Condoms, if you didn't know, are used by men. So, you're 100% off and simply making a very Rush Limbaugh-like statement.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Well, if you are going to compare apples to apples you'd have to tell me whether or not G'Town covers it. If they do, your point is pretty good.
Although, they aren't against sex, just birth control. So maybe not such a good comparison in this case after all. Maybe just regurgitated rhetoric.
I'm at a loss as to how anyone can mandate what a private institution offers as part of the benefits package they off to their workers/students, etc.
planned parenthood is under siege and is being defunded in a lot of ways. tax payers are not paying for birth control pills unless the patient is under a federal plan. that is for federal employess, who, i am not mistaken, pay insurance premiums and co-pays too....medicare covers ages 65 and older and those women are menopausal, so birth control is moot in that situation, or those patients who are on permanent disability. that is the only time medicare pays for birth control pills, if someone is disabled and premenopausal. who is paying for it? the INSURANCE companies, the patient with a co-pay, and to an extent the employer who pays part of the insurance premiums. the federal government is not paying for ms fluke's birth control, so please stop lying mr limbaugh.
and this is not a democratic smear to make the republicans look anti woman. the gop is doing that themselves. look at their rhetoric. look at what santorum has made an issue instead of the economy, which is what should matter to all of us, not this stupid social issue crap. the gop is going to lose on social issues every time. the gop is alienating the hispanic vote, and now the women's vote as well. they deserve the scorn being heaped onto their party because they are running candidates who are absolute jokes.
i find it interesting how conservatives all decry the gub'mint taking their rights away or infringing on them in some way, yet they are content to keep gays from marrying, take away a woman's right to choose and their reproductive insurance coverage, keep mexicans out of the country, etc.....seems they are only concerned about the freedom of white straight christian men...
as far aas the church goes, it has already been resolved that a religious institution does not have to pay to have birth control covered because the insurance companies are going to have to cover it. the administration backed down, religion won, constitutional crisis averted.
i can not believe that we are debating this in 2012 with near double digit unemployment.
gop strategy is to divert from the actual problems. manufacturing crises is theit forte'
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The only argument that I have to that, is more of an argument against the asinine idea that our health insurance is tied to our employment.
At the company I work for, we are only offered one type of medical insurance policy (which is pretty good). If my employer decided that they weren't going to cover something because they disagreed with it morally, then I really have no other options than to either 1) opt out of their coverage, and go buy private insurance which would cost me hundreds of more dollars a month, or 2) go find another job with insurance that covers what I need.
If we are basically tied to insurance through the workplace like we are, then we should have some protections that they can't just decide what they want to cover and what they don't want to cover.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
although condoms are used by men - it doesn't preclude a woman from purchasing condoms as a form of birth control ...
True, but can a man purchase female birth control? I honestly don't know the answer.
Not sure where you're going with this..
Anyway, my point there was simply to say that acting as though this issue has to do with sexual repression of women is ignorant and just plain wrong. (He/she said "Oh I forgot it's only promiscuous when it's woman having sex"... I responded to that). The Catholic church doesn't think it's ok for men to bang tons of girls, but not ok for women to do the same. Their belief is across the board that sex is good between men and women, but should be engaged in with the "chance" of a child. Birth control violates that. And as ridiculous as that belief may seem to some, they are entitled to their beliefs. Forcing them to pay for this is wrong, IMHO, because we all know this is what they think... they're not making this up for political purposes. It's been this way for a long, long time.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
This is the bottom line of this issue.
i think this issue ultimately comes down to whether or not birth control should be part of medical coverage ... what's to say that if the catholic church deemed that vaccinations were immoral!?? ... in the same token as you feel the catholic church is being forced to pay for contraceptives which are counter to their belief - they are advocating a system that forces insurance companies to remove it ... and in the end, it's not really the church paying for this insurance - it's the employees as the premiums just get deducted from their pay anyways ...
having said all that - i'm mostly on the fence on this one and ultimately it will boil down to whether or not contraception should or should not be included as a basic medical benefit ...
I'm don't think this is true. There is always a "company paid" portion no?
And they are not removing it from anything. Companies negotiate with insurance companies on packages and price. That is all they are doing as well.
In reality, I think it should be offered, but I can see the point being made.
and the issue is about insurance coverage...
my insurance costs go up with every new thing the insurance companies cover.
If a woman is financially able to buy her own birth control she should.
Really if you are going to play... pay for it.
Why would we want to add birth control to insurance costs when
people already can not afford insurance!
I am already paying for all those uninsured.
Did you know a hospital bill is marked up as much 800% :shock:
and then insurance companies negotiate them down, none of which know
what the other companies pay.
So an uninsured person goes to the emergency room for a headache walks out with a $3000 bill
they have to pay not realizing thats negotiable!
then they struggle to pay it or say forget you put it on my credit and costs go up some more.
Our healthcare system is wacked... wonder why
where is the common sense
Personally, I don't have a problem with a section of people thinking something like vaccinations were immoral and not wanting to take them. That said, I have a couple of issues with trying to equate vaccinations to contraceptives. (ASIDE- people continue to act like this is only contraceptives, but it can include much more invasive services - potentially even abortion, so that's a misnomer). Anyway, I'll state one - vaccinations (in some cases) have external positives associated with them. In other words, you taking it or not, can effect me. It's not the same thing with contraception (or any of these other services), although I think you know that.
Another issue I have with your post is you say the Catholic Church is "forcing insurance companies to remove it". Basically, you're implying that they were supplying this in these cases and now is being removed. That's factually false. Catholic institutions never had to do this up until now. It's the new regulation that's doing the forcing, not the church. If everything continued as normal, this wouldn't be an issue right now.
Finally, I don't really agree that it's not the church paying for it in any sense. I can see where you're going there, but I disagree. It's like saying an NFL players paying for insurance is not the NFL paying for it, despite that the plan goes through them.
The entire issue has unfortunately been covertly disrupted by idiots like Limbaugh. This is an important issue in my mind because it shows the overreach of government.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
it was just an example ... the catholic church is antiquated in their views on homosexuality and contraception in my opinion so it wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to outlaw something else ...
well ... the law says insurers must provide it ... so, the catholic church wants to force an exemption ...
as for who pays for the insurance ... it's semantics i guess ... there are line items on the pay stubs that show deductions for those premiums ...
Actually it isn't. A limbaugh statement would be that men are whores and should let us watch them f*ck if we're going to pay for it. :roll:
The only way it's ok to determine what a company will and will not pay for as far as insurance goes is if they pay 100%. Otherwise I pay in premiums, co-pays plus the amount they don't cover.
It's trolling for reactions, just like Rush. In that sense, it's similar.
I don't understand your 2nd point. Typically, companies and insurers negotiate what's included in a plan and prices associated.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I am anxiously awaiting Gimme's reply... :?:
http://gawker.com/5890752/jon-stewart-s ... e-comments
http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gend ... -insurance
...you guys on board with that one?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/wh ... z1oMgp0oka
SO, the whole sanscrosant bullshit moral argument doesn't work... AND your financial argument doesn't work...
what now?
throw poop at each other? THAT'S the level of intellectualism being displayed here.
really, who cares...? so the Obama administration wanted insurance companies cover this product for women...tell me again what the issue is...? women can get the pill covered by their insurance...?
SWEET GOD, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....that will end the world as we know it...
this is a dumb issue...
It's a classic distraction tactic that's working not only against the real problems this country's facing but also takes focus off of the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem.
it is a distraction technique. I don't really think this has anything to do with pedophilia scandels and everything to do with politics. Democrats are using it as a way to frame the republicans as social program, contraception hating morons...Republicans TRYING to showcase it as a government power grab infringing on the constitution they pretend to love...
As long as the politicians can frame this as republicans vs social issues, the republicans will lose damn near every time in the court of public opinion.
If it doesn't have to do with the economy/debt the GOP and their candidates for re-election would be wise to avoid this one.
Deal with one thing at a time...HHS mandates really shouldn't be central to the discussion right now...while they are a symptom of the overall problem with government, they are about 50th on the list of things that are important, and dealing with the other things will ultimately deal with this problem...it is like worrying about a cold when you have lung cancer.
on a side note, the more these types of things are aloud to dominate the conversation the more people will turn to supporting Santorum for some reason, and that is bad for EVERYONE.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Actually, it was George Stephanopoulos who initially brought up the issue during one of the Republican debates. Yeah, the same guy who used to be a political advisor to Bill Clinton. Makes me wonder who exactly is using distraction tactics.
I agree that the Republicans can't win on the social issues...they can win on the economy alone. That is why the media is harping on social issues like birth control. Anything to help their chosen one get re-elected.
While it has everything to do with politics, it helps shift people's perception of the Catholic church. Therefore focus off of the pedophilia issue is noted. If people just stepped back from politics and looked at it all from a big picture view, people would stop allowing themselves to get swallowed by details and "sides", and start looking at it all as just a game being spun on us all. Which is all it is anyway.
Not sure who this directed towards, but...
...it's not a cost issue on either side, bro. BC is free in a lot of places and is not expensive without insurance. Those against this are against government saying they HAVE to cover items they morally are against.... which includes contraception AND additional services, maybe even including abortion.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="