# A 7th advertiser pulls out of Limbaugh's show



## WouldaShoulda

"Pulls Out??"

I think they could have said it more discretely.

Don't you?? :crazy:

NEW YORK - A flower company is the seventh advertiser to pull its ads from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's radio program in reaction to his derogatory comments about a law student who testified about birth control policy.

ProFlowers said Sunday on its Facebook page that it has suspended advertising on Limbaugh's program because his comments about Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke "went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company."

The six other advertisers that say they have pulled ads from his show are mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and online legal document services company LegalZoom.

..."The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue," Premiere Networks said in a statement emailed Sunday by spokeswoman Rachel Nelson. "We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions."

Clear Channel Media and Entertainment operates more than 850 radio stations in the U.S., and Premiere says it's the largest radio content provider in the country, syndicating programs to more than 5,000 affiliate stations.

When asked which companies or organizations were the largest advertisers on Limbaugh's show, Nelson said that that information was "proprietary." Nelson declined to say how much revenue the company will lose with the advertiser defections or how much revenue Limbaugh's show brings in.

Clear Channel's parent company was taken private in 2008 by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and *Bain Capital.

*I was affraid for a momment that they would omit the Bain dig, but heck, they can't "slip that one past the goalie!!"


----------



## FJW

WouldaShoulda said:


> "Pulls Out??"
> 
> I think they could have said it more discretely.
> 
> Don't you?? :crazy:
> 
> Clear Channel's parent company was taken private in 2008 by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and *Bain Capital.
> 
> *I was affraid for a momment that they would omit the Bain dig, but heck, they can't "slip that one past the goalie!!"


...and Laura Ingraham is still waiting for President Obama to call her after Ed Shultz used the same word when referring to her.

Has Bain Capital now become the Halliburton of this election?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

FJW said:


> Has Bain Capital now become the Halliburton of this election?


It didn't work last time, but I imagine the usual suspects will keep pushing that message "deeper and harder" this time around until "no means yes!!"


----------



## mrkleen

FJW said:


> ...and Laura Ingraham is still waiting for President Obama to call her after Ed Shultz used the same word when referring to her.


If you cant see the difference between a person who insults people for a living - getting insulted by a fellow pundit - and a public citizen being slandered by a loud mouth, convicted drug addict, I dont know what to tell you.


----------



## zzdocxx

WouldaShoulda said:


> It didn't work last time, but I imagine the usual suspects will keep pushing that message "deeper and harder" this time around until "no means yes!!"


Funny.

ic12337:


----------



## FJW

No, I can certainly see the private v public person difference but I thought it was the 'word' that prompted President Obama to make the telephone call and although he called for a toning down of the rhetoric...no one seemed to have gotten memo!


----------



## Mike Petrik

FJW said:


> No, I can certainly see the private v public person difference but I thought it was the 'word' that prompted President Obama to make the telephone call and although he called for a toning down of the rhetoric...no one seemed to have gotten memo!


I agree with turning down the rhetoric, but just to be clear Ms. Fluke quite voluntarily chose to become a public figure. I don't think the double standard can be excused so easily.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree with turning down the rhetoric, but just to be clear Ms. Fluke quite voluntarily chose to become a public figure. I don't think the double standard can be excused so easily.


Ms Fluke was asked to testify in front of congress, she did. BIG difference between her and a talk show host (who spends her day passing judgement on and insulting people for a living.)

You guys TOTALLY see the distinction, but it doesnt suit your current position to admit it.


----------



## Jovan

Rush Limbaugh needs to take a good look at himself before he passes morality judgment on others.

He gave a very half-hearted apology recently and claimed, "the left made me apologize". Apparently not just the left, many Republicans found his rhetoric disgusting as well! Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum didn't do much to denounce him though. Maybe they're afraid of losing the vote of misogynistic, thrice divorced political pundits with prescription drug addictions.


----------



## dks202

mrkleen said:


> Ms Fluke was asked to testify in front of congress, she did.


Fluke was never asked to testify before Congress and she never did, the committee did not want to hear her. Issa denied her testimony citing the inability to vet Fluke.

After being turned down, some democrats held a press conference that was STAGED to appear like a congressional hearing. It meant nothing other than a feminist and some democrats getting her message on tv despite being turned down by Congress.


----------



## Leighton

dks202 said:


> Fluke was never asked to testify before Congress and she never did, the committee did not want to hear her. Issa denied her testimony citing the inability to vet Fluke.
> 
> After being turned down, some democrats held a press conference that was STAGED to appear like a congressional hearing. It meant nothing other than a feminist and some democrats getting her message on tv despite being turned down by Congress.


If it was your daughter/niece/grand-daughter/etc, would you take Limbaugh's comments in stride?


----------



## Regillus

From the Washington Post:

"Two more national advertisers - online giant AOL and tax service Tax Resolution - said Monday that they were suspending their sponsorship of Limbaugh, bringing the total number of companies fleeing Limbaugh to nine. In addition, two local advertisers, Hadeed Carpet and Rug and window-replacement company Thompson Creek said they have pulled their ads from WMAL AM-FM, which airs Limbaugh's show in the Washington area."

So that makes 11 total advertisers who've cancelled ads. I wonder how many it would take to get the show cancelled. It was wrong of Limbaugh to slander a private citizen who had been requested by Congress to testify. Worse, nothing that Limbaugh said about her was even true. Limbaugh "jumped the shark" because his show and his influence are fading. If people really wanted his show off the air; an organized boycott of his advertisers would do it.​


----------



## mrkleen

dks202 said:


> Fluke was never asked to testify before Congress and she never did, the committee did not want to hear her. Issa denied her testimony citing the inability to vet Fluke.
> 
> After being turned down, some democrats held a press conference that was STAGED to appear like a congressional hearing. It meant nothing other than a feminist and some democrats getting her message on tv despite being turned down by Congress.


She sat in a room in the Capitol, in front of a microphone and members of congress about an issue which she was ASKED to speak on. The fact that Issa used some BS argument for excluding her does not change any of the facts.

Not sure what the difference is to this argument. Are you suggesting that a statement is less slanderous if it is spoken about a person at a press conference than a person in a congressional hearing?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> Rush Limbaugh needs to take a good look at himself before he passes morality judgment on others.


Painting with a *Broad* Brush is enough to get anybody into trouble!!


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Ms Fluke was asked to testify in front of congress, she did. BIG difference between her and a talk show host (who spends her day passing judgement on and insulting people for a living.)
> 
> You guys TOTALLY see the distinction, but it doesnt suit your current position to admit it.


Actually mrkleen it is you who TOTALLY understands that Ms. Fluke is a public figure of her own choosing, but you care only about winning an argument and not a whit about truth. That said, the status of Ms Fluke and Ms. Palin does not excuse the rhetoric, and Limbaugh was right to apologize, just as Maher et al were right to apologize (oh wait ....).


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Leighton said:


> If it was your daughter/niece/grand-daughter/etc, would you take Limbaugh's comments in stride?


Limbaugh is a dick!!

Ms. Fluke is simply not a very astute shopper!!

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month

Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.

"Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy," Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university's policy of not covering birth control. "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills--the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen--for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can't afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate's supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.


----------



## FJW

WouldaShoulda said:


> It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can't afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate's supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.


And the arguement seems to have jumped from religious freedom to women's rights.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

FJW said:


> And the arguement seems to have jumped from religious freedom to women's rights.


It's not even a "religious or moral" issue for me. Any individual or employer that wants to limit or restrict any coverage option to save money on premium dollars, should have the opportunity to do so without a Federal Mandate.

Even local mandates here in Maryland are out of control.

They do not make coverage less expensive as we are promised, they drive up the cost of insurance as any amateur economist can predict.


----------



## dks202

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's not even a "religious or moral" issue for me. Any individual or employer that wants to limit or restrict any coverage option to save money on premium dollars, should have the opportunity to do so without a Federal Mandate.


Bottom line, right there. 'nuff said!


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> Actually mrkleen it is you who TOTALLY understands that Ms. Fluke is a public figure of her own choosing, but you care only about winning an argument and not a whit about truth. That said, the status of Ms Fluke and Ms. Palin does not excuse the rhetoric, and Limbaugh was right to apologize, just as Maher et al were right to apologize (oh wait ....).


Mike - you as a lawyer should know best what slander is. When Mr. Limbaugh is forced to pay Ms Fluke a nice tidy sum in the near future, I invite you to come out here and explain what happened


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's not even a "religious or moral" issue for me. Any individual or employer that wants to limit or restrict any coverage option to save money on premium dollars, should have the opportunity to do so without a Federal Mandate.


Fair enough. And the government should also be able to review the funding for said institutions.

Any college that decides to pick and choose the medical coverage they offer....will be excluded from all federal grants related to medical research. Any company that chooses to limit access to reproductive health care, loses their access to low interest federal loans.

As for churches...what a bunch of hypocrites. 62% of all funding for Catholic Charities comes from the Government. You dont want to offer legal healthcare options for your employees and students....fine....your funding will be cut by 50%.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Mike - you as a lawyer should know best what slander is.


Will Ms. Fluke have a problem calculating any real damages spawned by her sudden celebrity??


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Fair enough. And the government should also be able to review the funding for said institutions.


No argument from me.

You don't want strings, don't take the money!!

Of course, I don't think the Government should even be offering the money, but that's probably another story.

This is a significant point for me;

Taking the money=losing your freedom.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Mike - you as a lawyer should know best what slander is. When Mr. Limbaugh is forced to pay Ms Fluke a nice tidy sum in the near future, I invite you to come out here and explain what happened


First, I have not defended Limbaugh's statement. Second, it is not likely slander given that it was fairly obvious parody. And third, even if slander Fluke would easily qualify as a public figure under Times v Sullivan and progeny.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> First, I have not defended Limbaugh's statement. Second, it is not likely slander given that it was fairly obvious parody. And third, even if slander Fluke would easily qualify as a public figure under Times v Sullivan and progeny.


Fluke would get paid a big bag of hush money LONG before it ever got to that point.

Since Rush broadcasts nationwide, Fluke could find a sympathetic court (say the 9th circuit) and bring suit against Rush. Even if she ultimately has no chance of winning, she would not only cost Rush and Clear Channel a LOT of money - but drag his already piss poor reputation further into the gutter.

This issue is a BIG looser for Rush and the Republican candidates in general. Anyone in the country who has a wife, daughter or granddaughter is appalled by his disgraceful behavior. Dragging it out in court will only hurt Rush and his cronies further.


----------



## Jovan

My problem is that birth control isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it's used to treat ovarian cysts and regulate menstruation. Prior to being prescribed it at 16, one of my friends lost too much blood every month. Without it, she'd be a lot worse off.

The other problem is, if you cite "religious liberty" some employers would extend that to prenatal care and other things that most people consider necessary.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Fluke would get paid a big bag of hush money LONG before it ever got to that point.
> 
> Since Rush broadcasts nationwide, Fluke could find a sympathetic court (say the 9th circuit) and bring suit against Rush. Even if she ultimately has no chance of winning, she would not only cost Rush and Clear Channel a LOT of money - but drag his already piss poor reputation further into the gutter.
> 
> This issue is a BIG looser for Rush and the Republican candidates in general. Anyone in the country who has a wife, daughter or granddaughter is appalled by his disgraceful behavior. Dragging it out in court will only hurt Rush and his cronies further.


Yes, it is conceivable that Fluke could extort him. Not sure how that would play if it got out though. While everyone agrees that Rush's comments were out-of-line, few believe Fluke even had her feelings hurt let alone her reputation damaged. I'll bet she snickered the moment Rush mis-stepped.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Jovan said:


> My problem is that birth control isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it's used to treat ovarian cysts and regulate menstruation. Prior to being prescribed it at 16, one of my friends lost too much blood every month. Without it, she'd be a lot worse off.
> 
> The other problem is, if you cite "religious liberty" some employers would extend that to prenatal care and other things that most people consider necessary.


The Catholic Church never objected to paying to cover prescriptions for the reasons you describe. Your concern about religious objections to laws of general application is a valid one, and one the Supreme Court has had to grapple with through most of the 20th Century given the tension between the two religion clauses. I could go on but it would not be profitable in this forum.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> My problem is that birth control isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it's used to treat ovarian cysts and regulate menstruation.


Birth Control is Birth Control.

Hormone therapy for some ailments happen to be facilitated, in some instances, by birth control pills.

These are seperate issues entirely; the latter not being an issue at all.

Let's review the facts;

1) women are not denied access to contraception.

2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.

3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.

4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.

Why does Planned Parenthood want to shift what it has typically provided for women in the past, it's signiture and greatest acheivement, Birth Control, onto the Federal Government??

Is it possible they want to shift their focus to more profitable services they offer??


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, it is conceivable that Fluke could extort him. Not sure how that would play if it got out though. *While everyone agrees that Rush's comments were out-of-line*, few believe Fluke even had her feelings hurt let alone her reputation damaged. I'll bet she snickered the moment Rush mis-stepped.


NOT ONE of the bafoons running for the republican nomination has publicly condemned Rush. This issue is a big loser for the right with women voters.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> NOT ONE of the bafoons running for the republican nomination has publicly condemned Rush. This issue is a big loser for the right with women voters.


So by your logic Obama, Biden, Pelosi et al are perfectly fine with the vile commentary from Maher and others directed at conservative women since they decline to issue gratuitous public condemnations. I doubt that is true, though I was surprised that our President, when given a lay-up opportunity to condemn such discourse on all sides, chose instead to focus only on Rush. I'll nonetheless give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions, but I was disappointed in him. In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al.

And given the level of thought often displayed in your posts, I suggest you use the word "buffoon" with greater caution.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al..


And the latest polls - showing the President gaining support from women of all political backgrounds on a daily basis refutes this.



Mike Petrik said:


> In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al.
> 
> And given the level of thought often displayed in your posts, I suggest you use the word "buffoon" with greater caution.


Coming from you and the right wing circle jerks out here, that is a compliment.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> In the end this silly kerfuffle will have no more effect on the voting pattern of American women than did the comments from Maher et al.


We all understand that that every election cycle the usual suspects put on parade of losers and sad sacks. This years show will prove to be bigger and better than ever. Unfortunately, the 2008 road show worked!!


----------



## Jovan

mrkleen said:


> NOT ONE of the bafoons running for the republican nomination has publicly condemned Rush. This issue is a big loser for the right with women voters.


Indeed. I was really disappointed. But I shouldn't expect too much from Mitt R. Money and Rick Sanitarium at this point...


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> Indeed. I was really disappointed. But I shouldn't expect too much from Mitt R. Money and Rick Sanitarium at this point...


True, you can't do much about others living up to your standards, but you can control how you can be distracted from the facts.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's review the facts;
> 
> 1) women are not denied access to contraception.
> 
> 2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.
> 
> 3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.
> 
> 4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.


These facts don't change do they??


----------



## Jovan

I'm not aware that I was distracted from the facts...? I never once said you or Mike Petrik were wrong about those facts.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> I'm not aware that I was distracted from the facts...? I never once said you or Mike Petrik were wrong about those facts.


Thanks, I appreciate your candor.

Now that we agree the facts are not in dispute, it makes me wonder what the circus is for.

The only thing I can think of is to distract a voting segment from those facts.

But I will admit, sometimes I don't mind feeding the donkeys just for giggles!!


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's review the facts;
> 
> 1) women are not denied access to contraception.
> 
> 2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.
> 
> 3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.
> 
> 4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.


This is the same BACKWARD reasoning you have used many times out here. Like when you said that asking the poor to pay to have photo IDs in order to vote was not an impediment to them being able to do so.

In case you missed it, some people dont have any "extra" money to pay for things which should already be covered under their exsisting health insurance plan - nor should they have to.

So that fact that the plan at Georgetown covers Viagra with a simple co-pay - yet expects women to come up with $50+ dollars a month (on top of what they already pay for their health plan) makes it a barrier that some people cant afford.

But I wouldnt expect you compassionate folks on the right to give a rip about that.


----------



## Acct2000

On a cynical day, it's a amusing, but on most days it's sad.

The left and right both pretty equally engage in sometimes dishonest and sometimes reprehensible discourse (if the worst of it can be called that - - - -)

While they both are easily able to find the smallest bit of insult and totally blow it out of proportion when the other side "sins", they will both defend the nastiest, most irresponsible and/or evil behavior by an "ally" to the end.

This may not be the intention of the "left" or the "right." However, until honesty and doing the right thing becomes more important than "winning," both of you will manage to divide and eventually destroy our society until there is nothing worth "winning" for either of you.


----------



## RedBluff

forsbergacct2000 said:


> On a cynical day, it's a amusing, but on most days it's sad.
> 
> The left and right both pretty equally engage in sometimes dishonest and sometimes reprehensible discourse (if the worst of it can be called that - - - -)
> 
> While they both are easily able to find the smallest bit of insult and totally blow it out of proportion when the other side "sins", they will both defend the nastiest, most irresponsible and/or evil behavior by an "ally" to the end.
> 
> This may not be the intention of the "left" or the "right." However, until honesty and doing the right thing becomes more important than "winning," both of you will manage to divide and eventually destroy our society until there is nothing worth "winning" for either of you.


Well put.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> This is the same BACKWARD reasoning...


I appreciate that you have attacked me and failed to refute any of the facts I brought to the table.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

forsbergacct2000 said:


> However, until honesty and doing the right thing becomes more important than "winning," both of you will manage to divide and eventually destroy our society until there is nothing worth "winning" for either of you.


I'd like to think that the compassion displayed by organizations like the NAACP before they simply bacame a political tool, Or Planned Parenthood prior to becoming an abortion mill, or the Salvation Army and Goodwill, would be expanded upon to provide the needed services they offer with neither Federal interference or funding, for the benefit of the needy.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd like to think that the compassion displayed by organizations like the NAACP before they simply bacame a political tool, Or Planned Parenthood prior to becoming an abortion mill, or the Salvation Army and Goodwill, would be expanded upon to provide the needed services they offer with neither Federal interference or funding, for the benefit of the needy.


I'd like to think that too, but don't. As a Salvation Army and United Way board member I agree that the non-profit sector is vital to meeting the needs of Americans in distress, but I also think that there is a role for the body politic to use government as its agent as well (I'm not a libertarian). That said, I cannot fathom why it is government's job to guarantee contraception for all. And the notion that this is such a compelling federal interest that the government may force its citizens to commit acts that are violative of their religious beliefs in order to satisfy it is ridiculous on its face and unconscionable.


----------



## TomS

Mike Petrik said:


> That said, I cannot fathom why it is government's job to guarantee contraception for all. And the notion that this is such a compelling federal interest that the government may force its citizens to commit acts that are violative of their religious beliefs in order to satisfy it is ridiculous on its face and unconscionable.


You'll have to excuse my peculiar British notion that healthcare is a right for all, not just those who can afford it.

Would you ask those who can't find the money for contraceptives to abstain? I doubt it. Unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases cost money to treat, and it's far more efficient to make contraception available cheaply and easily than to deal with the alternatives.


----------



## tocqueville

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd like to think that the compassion displayed by organizations like the NAACP before they simply bacame a political tool, Or Planned Parenthood prior to becoming an abortion mill, or the Salvation Army and Goodwill, would be expanded upon to provide the needed services they offer with neither Federal interference or funding, for the benefit of the needy.


An abortion mill? Really?


----------



## tocqueville

mrkleen said:


> If you cant see the difference between a person who insults people for a living - getting insulted by a fellow pundit - and a public citizen being slandered by a loud mouth, convicted drug addict, I dont know what to tell you.


Yes. It was, moreover, profoundly sexist.


----------



## Jovan

WouldaShoulda said:


> Thanks, I appreciate your candor.
> 
> Now that we agree the facts are not in dispute, it makes me wonder what the circus is for.
> 
> The only thing I can think of is to distract a voting segment from those facts.
> 
> But I will admit, sometimes I don't mind feeding the donkeys just for giggles!!


I don't think you're quite as clever as you think you are.



mrkleen said:


> This is the same BACKWARD reasoning you have used many times out here. Like when you said that asking the poor to pay to have photo IDs in order to vote was not an impediment to them being able to do so.
> 
> In case you missed it, some people dont have any "extra" money to pay for things which should already be covered under their exsisting health insurance plan - nor should they have to.
> 
> *So that fact that the plan at Georgetown covers Viagra with a simple co-pay - yet expects women to come up with $50+ dollars a month (on top of what they already pay for their health plan) makes it a barrier that some people cant afford.*
> 
> But I wouldnt expect you compassionate folks on the right to give a rip about that.


I couldn't have said it better.



TomS said:


> You'll have to excuse my peculiar British notion that healthcare is a right for all, not just those who can afford it.
> 
> Would you ask those who can't find the money for contraceptives to abstain? I doubt it. *Unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases cost money to treat, and it's far more efficient to make contraception available cheaply and easily than to deal with the alternatives.*


But affordable healthcare for all is so COMMUNIST and SOCIALIST!!!

Good last point there. Also, in areas where sexual education is taught in public schools, there are far less teen pregnancies and STDs than areas that teach abstinence-only. This is a proven fact, time and again. Ignoring an issue does not make it go away. People will always want to have sex. There is nothing you can do except ensure they are educated and safe about it.



tocqueville said:


> An abortion mill? Really?


From Wikipedia: "Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA's total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served." 300k may sound like a lot, but out of the approximately three million people who use their services every year... hardly an abortion mill.



tocqueville said:


> Yes. It was, moreover, profoundly sexist.


Indeed. Though Maher seems to think Limbaugh's halfhearted apology was enough. I don't know.

I'm also unsure about Fluke taking him to court. Why dignify his remarks by doing that? Plus, for every pundit you take out, there's hundreds more waiting to take their place.


----------



## Regillus

TomS said:


> You'll have to excuse my peculiar British notion that healthcare is a right for all, not just those who can afford it.
> 
> Would you ask those who can't find the money for contraceptives to abstain? I doubt it. Unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases cost money to treat, and it's far more efficient to make contraception available cheaply and easily than to deal with the alternatives.


Yes!, yes!; a thousand times yes! All in favor of the U.S. adopting a Canadian-style single-payer health care system say aye. I want to refresh people's memories of the practice that existed back in the 20's, 30's and 40's. There were places - I forget what they were called - where pregnant middle-class teen girls were sent. The girls stayed there until they had their baby; then were pressured into signing adoption papers giving away their babies. The worst part about these places was this: They were run by people with absolutely no medical training whatsoever. Most infant deliveries go normally; no problems. However, you do have the occasional difficult delivery. You had non-medical people trying to deal with breech babies etc. One of the usual problems to encounter during a difficult delivery is heavy bleeding. The bleeding has to be stopped or the girl can bleed to death. So these non-medical people were trying whatever they could think of to stop the bleeding, and sometimes they were successful and sometimes they were not. In those cases; the girl bled to death. So, today, to have a place like Planned Parenthood to go to where a delivery or an abortion can be performed by a DOCTOR who knows how to handle any complications and heavy bleeding can be addressed in the correct manner is a godsend for young women.


----------



## Bjorn

Interesting debate. Very mid 20th century. 

It's not like contraceptives is actually an impeding cost for the state, so I'm guessing this is just about some people (the haves) wanting to push their values on other people (usually the have nots). 

The separation of state and church is important. Basis of freedom in accordance with many thinkers.


----------



## TomS

Bjorn said:


> Interesting debate. Very mid 20th century.
> 
> It's not like contraceptives is actually an impeding cost for the state, so I'm guessing this is just about some people (the haves) wanting to push their values on other people (usually the have nots).
> 
> The separation of state and church is important. Basis of freedom in accordance with many thinkers.


That's it, I'm moving to Sweden.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Bjorn said:


> Interesting debate. Very mid 20th century.
> 
> It's not like contraceptives is actually an impeding cost for the state, so I'm guessing this is just about some people (the haves) wanting to push their values on other people (usually the have nots).
> 
> The separation of state and church is important. Basis of freedom in accordance with many thinkers.


Indeed. Especially when you consider the vast amounts of money thrown into the Military and related 'businesses'.

I mean, the notion that conservatism is about protecting the standards and morals of a Nation is a fallacy. Conservatism(like patriotism) is a ruse protect the interests of a few with interests that need protecting.


----------



## Jovan

TomS said:


> That's it, I'm moving to Sweden.


The grass is always greener on the other side. Sweden is a great country, no doubt, but like Canada (my birth country) it isn't a perfect progressive utopia. In particular:

"In Sweden, sterilization is only compulsory before sex change.[SUP][25][/SUP] This last compulsory sterilization has been criticized by several political parties in Sweden. The Christian Democrats is the only party in the Parliament of Sweden that is in favor of keeping compulsory sterilization."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Sweden

Why does it not surprise me that the Christian Democrats are the only ones who still want this. -_- Thankfully there's overwhelming opposition to it now and I hope it is abolished soon.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

TomS said:


> Would you ask those who can't find the money for contraceptives to abstain?


You have not been paying attention.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> It's not like contraceptives is actually an impeding cost for the state, so I'm guessing this is just about some people (the haves) wanting to push their values on other people (usually the have nots).


In the US our States and Counties have public health facilities. While they may receive Federal funding, it is counter to American ideology (at least until recently) to have a central governing authority running them. Here, an underserved public regularly receives afforbale services including BC.

The only value I'm interested in "pushing" is that of independence and self reliance. It is not a religious issue. Admittedly, some have unwisely taken this tack on it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> From Wikipedia: "Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA's total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served." 300k may sound like a lot, but out of the approximately three million people who use their services every year...
> 
> ....hardly an abortion mill.


That takes care of 38% of their budget. What happens to the other 62%??

Why has PP failed so miserably in it's primary mission to serve women that 30 year old third year law students at Georgetown U have to be burdened by paying for their own BC??

What organization provides more abortion services than PP??


----------



## eagle2250

^^ In referrence to post #54:
LOL. You seem not to have heard of Obamacare?


----------



## mrkleen

Bjorn said:


> It's not like contraceptives is actually an impeding cost for the state, so I'm guessing this is just about some people (the haves) wanting to push their values on other people (usually the have nots).


Exactly right.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> ^^ In referrence to post #54:
> LOL. You seem not to have heard of Obamacare?


I said "until recently!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Exactly right.


If Bjorn was "exactly right" where am I exatly wrong when I stated In the US our States and Counties have public health facilities. Here, an underserved public regularly receives afforbale services including BC.

Clearly, access to free BC services for the poor exists and will continue to exist.

Do you think PP has failed in their primary mission??


----------



## TomS

Jovan said:


> The grass is always greener on the other side. Sweden is a great country, no doubt, but like Canada (my birth country) it isn't a perfect progressive utopia. In particular:
> 
> "In Sweden, sterilization is only compulsory before sex change.[SUP][25][/SUP] This last compulsory sterilization has been criticized by several political parties in Sweden. The Christian Democrats is the only party in the Parliament of Sweden that is in favor of keeping compulsory sterilization."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Sweden
> 
> Why does it not surprise me that the Christian Democrats are the only ones who still want this. -_- Thankfully there's overwhelming opposition to it now and I hope it is abolished soon.


That I did not know! Interesting, if perturbing.

I have friends in Uppsala who I really must visit again sometime. It's not a magical paradise, but they do seem to have got a lot right. Of course, a lot of it is only possible because they have a population of around 9m.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> If Bjorn was "exactly right" where am I exatly wrong when I stated In the US our States and Counties have public health facilities.


Man, you REALLY want to keep this going&#8230;.ok.

So I have a job. I pay my share to participate in my employers health care plan. Yet, my employer decides it is against his religion to provide me with the blood pressure medicine I need to prevent a heart attack.

Your answer to this is, that I should go to the free clinic to get my pills? Really?


----------



## FJW

mrkleen said:


> Man, you REALLY want to keep this going&#8230;.ok.
> 
> So I have a job. I pay my share to participate in my employers health care plan. Yet, my employer decides it is against his religion to provide me with the blood pressure medicine I need to prevent a heart attack.
> 
> Your answer to this is, that I should go to the free clinic to get my pills? Really?


The short answer is 'Yes'

The employer has as much right to cover or not cover his/her employees with as broad or narrow a policy as you do to find an employer who will offer coverage that fits your needs. Be it Birth Control or BP medicine.


----------



## mrkleen

FJW said:


> The short answer is 'Yes'
> 
> The employer has as much right to cover or not cover his/her employees with as broad or narrow a policy as you do to find an employer who will offer coverage that fits your needs. Be it Birth Control or BP medicine.


Fair enough.

And if my employer is an organization like Georgetown University or the Catholic Church that get some of their funding from the federal government, they should be cut off from a proportionate amount of that funding.


----------



## FJW

But in reality, every business private, public, non-profit, religious, etc receives something from the federal government either indirectly through tax policy or directly through some funding mechanism.

So I don't know where to draw the line. 

It just seems like a 'business' should be able to run it's business in a way that will best serve it's employees and customers and if they (the business) think it's in their best interest to cover something or not, they should be able to do so without interference Washington.


***And as a relatively new member I'm somewhat amazed that amongst all this tweed and argyle this 'conversation' as gone on for several days and several pages.

Some of us need to agree to disagree and wait for 'Bilax' to give us a weather report and a new image from San Francisco!


----------



## Jovan

Well, this is The Interchange, it's a forum for discussions that go _off_ the topic of clothing. We try to keep political and religious discussion out of the clothing forums.


----------



## mrkleen

FJW said:


> But in reality, *every business private, public, non-profit, religious, etc receives something from the federal government* either indirectly through tax policy or directly through some funding mechanism.
> 
> So I don't know where to draw the line.
> 
> It just seems like *a 'business' should be able to run* it's business in a way that will best serve it's employees and customers and if they (the business) think it's in their best interest to cover something or not, they should be able to do so *without interference Washington.*


And you dont see the inconsistency here?

Kind of like the Tea Party members who collect social security, medicare, bought their house with a FHA load, sent their kids to school with a Pell grant - who are holding a sign the says "Get Washington Out Of My Business"

A catholic organization that receives funding from the federal government - which comes from taxes. Most of those taxes are from the paychecks of citizens who are NOT catholic. But as soon as that money is deposited in the the organizations account -they become the sole arbiters on how it is used?

Sounds fair to me.


----------



## Bjorn

Aren't businesses supposed to to, well, business? Why leave healthcare to them?

Oh, and is anyone of you who comment on this not fully covered?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> Aren't businesses supposed to to, well, business? Why leave healthcare to them?


This is frequently misunderstood.

Outside of programs to promote smoking cessation, weight control or flu shots, which my employer does completely voluntarily, employers do not provide health care.

They provide health insurance.

My doctor provides health care.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

mrkleen said:


> Man, you REALLY want to keep this going&#8230;.ok.
> 
> So I have a job. I pay my share to participate in my employers health care plan. Yet, my employer decides it is against his religion to provide me with the blood pressure medicine I need to prevent a heart attack.
> 
> Your answer to this is, that I should go to the free clinic to get my pills? Really?


Go to Giant Pharmacy and get a 90 day supply for $9 like I do.

You and Ms Fluke could really use some savvy shopping advice!!


----------



## Jovan

mrkleen said:


> And you dont see the inconsistency here?
> 
> Kind of like the Tea Party members who collect social security, medicare, bought their house with a FHA load, sent their kids to school with a Pell grant - who are holding a sign the says "Get Washington Out Of My Business"
> 
> A catholic organization that receives funding from the federal government - which comes from taxes. Most of those taxes are from the paychecks of citizens who are NOT catholic. But as soon as that money is deposited in the the organizations account -they become the sole arbiters on how it is used?
> 
> Sounds fair to me.


You hit the nail on the head of the hypocrisy of this whole thing.


----------



## Regillus

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) women are not denied access to contraception.
> 
> 2) the HHS mandate does not alter that fact.
> 
> 3) no legislation has been proposed to deny women access to contraception.
> 
> 4) the only thing the HHS mandate changes is who pays for contraception, under penalty of law.


The issue isn't _access_ to birth control pills - it's the _cost_ of BC. As TomS said; it's cheaper to provide women with free BC than to pay for the cost of raising an unwanted child. As I'm sure you know; healthcare costs have gone through the roof, and individuals are having difficulty paying the expense; hence the need to pool resources into an insurance pool to spread the cost around.



WouldaShoulda said:


> You have not been paying attention.


Sorry; I'm missing your point. Please elucidate.



Bjorn said:


> Oh, and is anyone of you who comment on this not fully covered?


Know how I dealt with the high cost of individual health insurance when I was in my 20's? I didn't have any. Now (I'm 53)? My employer only covers short-term disability expenses up to $800 per month. Not enough to meet my monthly living expenses. So I shell out $117 per month to Mutual of Omaha for a short-term disability policy that pays me $1,800 per month for living expenses if I'm out of work for medical reasons.


----------



## TomS

FJW said:


> The short answer is 'Yes'
> 
> The employer has as much right to cover or not cover his/her employees with as broad or narrow a policy as you do to find an employer who will offer coverage that fits your needs. Be it Birth Control or BP medicine.





WouldaShoulda said:


> This is frequently misunderstood.
> 
> Outside of programs to promote smoking cessation, weight control or flu shots, which my employer does completely voluntarily, employers do not provide health care.
> 
> They provide health insurance.
> 
> My doctor provides health care.


In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do? Healthcare is healthcare, and should be left in the hands of doctors/nurses/hospital managers, not dictated by special interest groups.

On the wider issue of US healthcare reform, I'd direct one and all to this graph, and then encourage you all to ponder whether healthcare is something people ought to make a profit from.


----------



## VictorRomeo

TomS said:


> In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do? Healthcare is healthcare, and should be left in the hands of doctors/nurses/hospital managers, not dictated by special interest groups.


Bingo! And when spelled out like that it not just neutralises any form of opposing argument, it paves the way right to the very heart of what's wrong with the right wing, conservative and corporative agenda in the world.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

TomS said:


> In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do? Healthcare is healthcare, and should be left in the hands of doctors/nurses/hospital managers, not dictated by special interest groups.


That is a false assertion. No one is being told what to do. When you pay your doctor for his services you have complete freedom of the services you are willing to pay for.

Every time anyone accepts money to pay for services on your bahalf, you also relenquish how much is going to be paid and what is going to be paid weather it is an insurance company or a government entity.

The only reason for anyone to deliberately confuse access and treatment options with methods of payment is to distract the uninformed.

It's unfortunate how often the ruse works,


----------



## WouldaShoulda

VictorRomeo said:


> Bingo! And when spelled out like that it not just neutralises any form of opposing argument, it paves the way right to the very heart of what's wrong with the right wing, conservative and corporative agenda in the world.


Not so fast pal!!


----------



## dks202

TomS said:


> In that case, shouldn't the doctor(s) be free to prescribe what they like when they like, rather than being told by Roman Catholic (or insert any other religious/political group) employers what they're allowed to do?
> 
> .


Doctors already prescribe what they want. But then, how many of us get to the pharmacy and receive a generic version? What about "it's not covered by your insurance"? You call the doctor's office and tell them, then they prescribe something else. If not you have to pay.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

^^^

In my case, my generic RX co-pay is $10 for a 30 day supply.

Without insurance the same stuff is $9.99 for a 90 day supply. 

Wait a minute...

Why does Fluke get life saving BC pills with NO co-pay w/Obamacare and my life saving HBP medication has a co-pay??

Where's MY free **** at??


----------



## dks202

WouldaShoulda said:


> ^^^
> 
> Where's MY free **** at??


I'm with you brother, I pay $300/month for health insurance (family coverage)! I wouldn't mind free stuff or lower premiums.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

dks202 said:


> I'm with you brother, I pay $300/month for health insurance (family coverage)! I wouldn't mind free stuff or lower premiums.


Why limit your own benefits, increase deductbles or co-pays to save money, when you can just have Obama mandate it for you??

F-them!!


----------



## dks202

That's the ticket! Drop all my coverage and pay little or nothing for health care that's above and beyond what I now have!

_(translation--- I get a pay raise and YOU can pay for my coverage)_


----------



## WouldaShoulda

You know, I was at the Giant getting my $9 RX and there was also a 4-pack of Guinness there. 

If you paid for my RX I could have gotten the Guinness too.

Damn those Repblican Bastards.

They aren't going to tell me what I can do with my body!!

Obama 2012.

Where's my free **** at??


----------



## TomS

dks202 said:


> Doctors already prescribe what they want. But then, how many of us get to the pharmacy and receive a generic version? What about "it's not covered by your insurance"? You call the doctor's office and tell them, then they prescribe something else. If not you have to pay.


Perhaps I should add "...with the reasonable expectation that their patient can get hold of whatever it is they are prescribing and without the interference of a market economy between the writing of a prescription and the delivery of it."


----------



## WouldaShoulda

TomS said:


> Perhaps I should add "...with the reasonable expectation that their patient can get hold of whatever it is they are prescribing and *without the interference of a market economy* between the writing of a prescription and the delivery of it."


Free **** for everybody, Comrade!!

No one desreves to be shackled by the burden of free enterprise!!


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> This is frequently misunderstood.
> 
> Outside of programs to promote smoking cessation, weight control or flu shots, which my employer does completely voluntarily, employers do not provide health care.
> 
> They provide health insurance.
> 
> My doctor provides health care.


You doctor does not 'provide' health care. He offers health care services. You employer 'provides' it.

Verb:	
Make available for use; supply.
Equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary): "we were provided with a map".
Synonyms:	
supply - furnish - purvey - stock - equip

So there...


----------



## Bjorn

Regillus said:


> The issue isn't _access_ to birth control pills - it's the _cost_ of BC. As TomS said; it's cheaper to provide women with free BC than to pay for the cost of raising an unwanted child. As I'm sure you know; healthcare costs have gone through the roof, and individuals are having difficulty paying the expense; hence the need to pool resources into an insurance pool to spread the cost around.
> 
> Know how I dealt with the high cost of individual health insurance when I was in my 20's? I didn't have any. Now (I'm 53)? My employer only covers short-term disability expenses up to $800 per month. Not enough to meet my monthly living expenses. So I shell out $117 per month to Mutual of Omaha for a short-term disability policy that pays me $1,800 per month for living expenses if I'm out of work for medical reasons.


Has to be really hard for people who get sick. That's a lot to sacrifice on the bonfire of free commerce.

It's a little funny some seem to regard social insurance and public health insurance as socialism. It clearly isnt. Google Bismarck...

In 1884, conservative German politician Otto Von Bismarck declared:
"The real grievance of the worker is the insecurity of his existence; he is not sure that he will always have work, he is not sure that he will always be healthy, and he foresees that he will one day be old and unfit to work. If he falls into poverty, even if only through a prolonged illness, he is then completely helpless, left to his own devices, and society does not currently recognize any real obligation towards him beyond the usual help for the poor, even if he has been working all the time ever so faithfully and diligently. The usual help for the poor, however, leaves a lot to be desired, especially in large cities, where it is very much worse than in the country."

He then went on to create German social insurance. And incidentally:

"The social legislation implemented by Bismarck in the 1880s played a key role in the sharp, rapid decline of German emigration to America. Young men considering emigration looked at not only the gap between higher hourly 'direct wages' in the United States and Germany but also the differential in 'indirect wages,' that is, social benefits, which favored staying in Germany. The young men went to German industrial cities, so that Bismarck's insurance system partly offset low wage rates in Germany and furthered the fall of the emigration rate." (Wikipedia)


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> You doctor does not 'provide' health care. He offers health care services. You employer 'provides' it.
> 
> Verb:
> Make available for use; supply.
> Equip or supply someone with (something useful or necessary): "we were provided with a map".
> Synonyms:
> supply - furnish - purvey - stock - equip
> 
> So there...


SWING!! And a miss!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> Has to be really hard for people who get sick. That's a lot to sacrifice on *the bonfire of free commerce. *


Damn that free commerce!!

BTW~Why do they call it free commerce if it isn't free??

Shouldn't it be "on the backs of decent working people" commerce??


----------



## TomS

WouldaShoulda said:


> Free **** for everybody, Comrade!!
> 
> No one desreves to be shackled by the burden of free enterprise!!


If you can't see that market economics in healthcare serves to massively inflate costs at no measurable benefit to service, we'll be going round in circles for some time yet.

I'm going to try this again. The OECD data on healthcare spending:










The same data tells us that US life expectancy in 2006 was 78 years, roughly the same as Cuba and less than all the countries that fit on the graph.

You spend more, you get less.


----------



## Jovan

I blame fast food! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> Damn that free commerce!!
> 
> BTW~Why do they call it free commerce if it isn't free??
> 
> Shouldn't it be "on the backs of decent working people" commerce??


In this case, on the backs of decent sick people.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> In this case, on the backs of decent sick people.


That's a bad assumption. A lot of health care costs are paid by perfectly healthy people. A lot of said health care costs also go directly to overhead (like $25M salary to the CEOs of Insurance companies).


----------



## Regillus

WouldaShoulda said:


> Free **** for everybody, Comrade!!


It isn't free. You pay for it with your income taxes. Everybody pays into a pool. Medical expenses are paid for on an as-needed basis.

TomS is right - see post #88. We (the USA) pay far too much for far too little health care. The system is being forced to change because too many people can't afford decent health care. That makes it a political issue. Hence Obamacare.

From Post #88: "If you can't see that market economics in healthcare serves to massively inflate costs at no measurable [improvement in] service,...."
Exactly!


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> That's a bad assumption. A lot of health care costs are paid by perfectly healthy people. A lot of said health care costs also go directly to overhead (like $25M salary to the CEOs of Insurance companies).


I simply meant that the risk of hardship and suffering due to spotty or nonexistent coverage due to employment situation is born by everybody, and that the downsides of the system (spotty coverage) is born primarily by people who get sick.

What is it exactly that insurance companies bring to the system that offsets the lack of a basic coverage for all? There should at least be some economic efficiencies that other countries with full state issued coverage would not have?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

TomS said:


> If you can't see that market economics in healthcare serves to massively inflate costs at no measurable benefit to service, we'll be going round in circles for some time yet.


I appreciate that the American system needs reform.

I contend that Obamacare is the wrong reform.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> I blame fast food! :icon_smile_big:


I blame my parents!!


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> I blame my parents!!


me too.


----------



## Regillus

Bjorn said:


> ...the downsides of the system (spotty coverage) is [borne] primarily by people who get sick.


An important point. It's a known fact that for decades now; people in the U.S. with no health insurance wait until their medical problems become so severe that they have to go to the emergency room for treatment. Emergency rooms, by law; have to treat anyone who shows up. Meaning that people wait until their medical problems become life-threatening and possibly cause long-term damage to their bodies before they seek treatment. They can't afford preventative treatment that would have prevented their medical condition from becoming so severe in the first place. With a single-payer national healthcare system; people could go to the doctor at the first sign of illness, and receive health services at an early stage when the medical problem is easier and CHEAPER to deal with.



WouldaShoulda said:


> I appreciate that the American system needs reform.
> 
> I contend that Obamacare is the wrong reform.


"...needs reform." Yes! Score one for our side.

"...Obamacare is the wrong reform." And your proposal is? The fact that you admit there's a problem and only object to Obamas solution without addressing the problem itself only serves to illustrate the intellectual vacuity of the conservative position.

Ah! Found it. THIS is your proposal?:

From Post #42: "I'd like to think that the compassion displayed by organizations like the NAACP before they simply [became] a political tool, Or Planned Parenthood prior to becoming an abortion mill, or the Salvation Army and Goodwill, would be *expanded upon* to provide the needed services they offer with neither Federal interference or funding, for the benefit of the needy."

So you think that the services offered by the Salvation Army and Goodwill should be expanded upon to include health care and/or health insurance for the uninsured? Am I reading you right? Just one problem. How are these additional services going to be paid for? Private donations? What's wrong with this idea is that donations to these organizations can rise or fall considerably from year to year. Health care insurance needs a reliable source of funding. Paying for such insurance via your income taxes and everyone must pay in is a much more reliable and effective way to create a large pool of insurance money out of which health care costs are paid.

Re Post #54: "In the US our States and Counties have public health facilities. ...Here, an underserved public regularly receives [affordable] services including BC."

You clearly have had no personal experience with such "public health facilities." I have. They get a yearly budget. When the money runs out - the services stop until next years budget shows up. So if you show up needing help near the end of the fiscal year and they're out of money for your particular problem then you'll just have to endure the problem for a few more months until the new budget comes in. At whatever personal cost to your health that may entail.

"The only value I'm interested in 'pushing' is that of independence and self reliance...."

Independence and self reliance for who? How many tax credits do you take on your 1040? As many as you can? Some "self-reliance" that is. The rich get more money via gov't subsidies i.e. tax credits than the poor ever did.

"...it is counter to American ideology (*at least until recently*) to have a central governing authority running them...."

Define "recently." The "ideology" that you refer to was discarded by the American public when they elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. And reinforced when they re-elected FDR three more times. Remember the WPA, CWA, and CCC? They all had a "central governing authority running them" and they worked great until the recovering economy made them unnecessary.

_________________

Oh, and by the way. Why should the federal gov't get involved in health care on a national scale? To avoid unnecessary duplication. The problem of skyrocketing health care costs is a nationwide problem affecting tens of millions of VOTERS. We already have an organization that deals with nation-wide problems. It's called the federal gov't.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> Oh, and by the way. Why should the federal gov't get involved in health care on a national scale?


Involved??

Maybe.

Impose participation??

That's to be determined.


----------



## Regillus

WouldaShoulda said:


> Involved??
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> Impose participation??
> 
> That's to be determined.


"Impose participation?" The federal gov't already imposes participation in a lot of things. Whether people want to or not their income taxes pay for the military (any conscientious objectors or Quakers here?); F.B.I; D.E.A. (any members of NORML here?); F.D.A.; F.T.C.; F.C.C. (see Howard Stern) and a long list of other federal agencies. Last but not least; everyone except the self-employed is required to participate in Social Security.

A recent article in Slate magazine addresses this:

The Wisdom of the Ailing
The real reason health insurers won't cover people with pre-existing conditions.
By Ray Fisman|Posted Monday, March 12, 2012, at 6:10 PM ET

An intriguing answer to that question comes from Nathaniel Hendren, a graduating Ph.D. student at MIT,.... According to Hendren's argument, not only are sick people a lot more expensive to care for, but they also know a lot more about what their cost of care is likely to be in the future. And it's this inside information that makes the market for covering pre-existing conditions break down.
To understand Hendren's theory, it's useful to think about an extreme case. Consider the agonizing decision of whether or not to treat terminal cancer with costly and painful chemotherapy, which often provides only a small chance of remission. If you ask me what I, a healthy 41-year-old, would do, I have no idea-I've never really thought much about it, and in any event I have no real basis for weighing the costs and benefits. How painful would treatment actually be? And how would I face my own end-of-life decision?
Someone who already has cancer, by comparison, has a much greater appreciation for the treatment options available and presumably he has a much clearer sense of how far he's willing to go for a chance at survival. Different people will have reached different decisions after going through this difficult calculus, and the outcome has significant financial implications for any insurance company that's agreed to provide coverage.
So now let's consider the problem facing an insurance company, say a Blue Cross, that wants to offer coverage to cancer patients with similar diagnoses. While they may look similar to the company's statisticians, different patients may choose very different courses of treatment. Some may decide to pursue aggressive options. Others may opt out of what's expected to be a long and painful fight. The patients' medical expenses will be drastically different, despite their similar prognoses.
Now suppose the Blue Cross offers them all the same policy for, say, $10,000 per year, based on data showing that the annual medical costs of cancer victims is about $8,000 on average. Who is going to take the insurer up on the offer? A patient who expects his expenses to cap out at just a few thousand dollars won't sign up-for him, the coverage isn't worth it. But the patients who have already decided that they'll take advantage of aggressive and expensive treatments will enroll. The cost per person of all patients with a cancer diagnosis may be $8,000, but if the only patients who enroll are the ones who expect their costs to be more than $10,000, that's a money-losing proposition for the insurer.
Suppose the Blue Cross goes through with higher-priced coverage for cancer survivors anyway, and finds that the policyholders end up with medical expenses of $15,000 per year on average-could it solve the problem simply by raising the price to, say, $20,000? It can't, because that would only make the problem worse by getting rid of the relatively cheap-to-insure customers who were willing to pay $10,000 for coverage but no longer find it worthwhile at a price of $20,000. Each time it raises the price, the insurer gets stuck covering an ever more expensive set of cases. It's a no-win situation for insurers, so they choose not to offer coverage at all.
Hendren didn't invent the idea of markets falling apart because customers know something that companies don't. Nobel prizes were awarded to a trio of economists in 2001 for developing this idea of adverse selection in the 1970s [i.e. George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph Stiglitz].
Come 2014, the Affordable Care Act will prevent insurers from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions: cancer victims and stroke survivors will be able to buy insurance at the same price as otherwise similar applicants. Insurance companies may take a hit to profits, but part of the cost will surely be passed on to the lower-cost counterparts to this high-cost pool. Healthy people might be tempted to opt out, but under the new law, they'll be required to have insurance. This individual mandate is a natural fix to the problem of adverse selection in health insurance: It keeps the lowest-cost participants from opting out, and as a result the market doesn't unravel.
------------------------
It always works better when we stand together. A single-payer healthcare system does that.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Regillus said:


> "Impose participation?" The federal gov't already imposes participation in a lot of things.
> 
> It always works better when we stand together. A single-payer healthcare system does that.


1) It has not previously compelled me to buy a product from a private company, however.

2) That's not what Obamacare is.

Look, if Americans want to consign the thoughts of "That government is best which governs least" to the scrap heap of outdated ramblings of hateful former salveowners, I'll get by.

I think they are wrong, but I'll get by!!


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> 2) That's not what Obamacare is.


Right, what Obamacare is - is a Republican idea - *Newt Gingrich** - *like *Mitt Romney**, **Orrin Hatch,* the *Heritage Foundation, Gerald Ford**, **Richard Nixon* and most other leading Republicans - were FOR *health care mandates* before they were AGAINST them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Thank goodness they have come to their senses!!


----------



## VictorRomeo

WouldaShoulda said:


> Thank goodness they have come to their senses!!


Yeah, because like all good Republicans everyone else can die in a ditch for all they care.


----------



## mrkleen

WouldaShoulda said:


> Thank goodness they have come to their senses!!


Is that what you guys are calling flip flopping these days?


----------



## WouldaShoulda




----------



## Regillus

mrkleen said:


> Right, what Obamacare is - is a Republican idea - *Newt Gingrich** - *like *Mitt Romney**, **Orrin Hatch,* the *Heritage Foundation, Gerald Ford**, **Richard Nixon* and most other leading Republicans - were FOR *health care mandates* before they were AGAINST them.


The idea of National Health Insurance has been around since FDR:

During FDR's reign:
Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bills: 1943

The Wagner Bill evolved and shifted from a proposal for federal grants-in- aid to a proposal for national health insurance. First introduced in 1943, it became the very famous Wagner-Murray- Dingell Bill. The bill called for compulsory national health insurance and a payroll tax.

This Day in Truman History 
November 19, 1945 
President Truman's Proposed Health Program

The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In his November 19, 1945 address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.

...President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a kind of universal health care.

Eisenhower asked Congress for $25 million to fund what he called health "reinsurance."

Under the Eisenhower plan, private insurance companies who extended benefits to uninsured Americans would be reimbursed by the federal government should they incur excessive [losses]. In a way, the government was insuring the insurers.
---------------------------------

What derailed national health insurance this time around was one man: Sen. Joe Lieberman. He objected to the inclusion of a "public option" i.e. publicly-paid for health insurance because he thought it was too expensive. Lieberman isn't running again, so if a democrat tide sweeps into office in 2013; voted in by angry unemployed workers and foreclosed-upon homeowners; maybe next time around mandatory national health insurance will at long last pass.


----------



## Jovan

:icon_hailthee:


----------



## Pentheos

I enjoy that cartoon. What's so funny? You need to swap those price tags to get an approximation of reality.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Pentheos said:


> I enjoy that cartoon. What's so funny? You need to swap those price tags to get an approximation of reality.


Which seems appropriate. And fair.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

The 'War on Women' loses a general after Sandra Fluke rejected by California votersThe hollow and silly "War on Women" narrative may never truly disappear. Democrats will need to marshal grievance among young and single women like never before if Hillary Clinton becomes the party's standard-bearer in 2016. But the 2014 elections have dealt this vacuous yarn a blow from which it may never recover.

https://hotair.com/archives/2014/11...sandra-flukes-rejection-by-california-voters/


----------



## SG_67

I'm not convinced that Hillary is going to be the nominee.

She's quite the lousy candidate actually. She's terrible in the stump, thin skinned, doesn't come across as authentic and plain unlikable. 

Of course I'm biased but that an objective opinion. I don't agree with Bill's politics but he seems genuine, likable and interesting and fun to listen to. Hillary can't connect, Bill can. I can hangout with Bill. Hillary reminds me of a grade school nun.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> I'm not convinced that Hillary is going to be the nominee.
> 
> She's quite the lousy candidate actually. She's terrible in the stump, thin skinned, doesn't come across as authentic and plain unlikable.
> 
> Of course I'm biased but that an objective opinion. I don't agree with Bill's politics but he seems genuine, likable and interesting and fun to listen to. Hillary can't connect, Bill can. I can hangout with Bill. Hillary reminds me of a grade school nun.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: This country would have been much better off if Hillary Clinton had become president instead of Barack Obama. She was, and is, ready. Obama would have been a very good president, I think, if he had gained more experience in Washington before going to the White House. We will never know, of course.

While your points on Hillary are well taken, I think that she would make a good president, and I that think she will be the nominee. I don't see anyone else at this point, but there's still time. I don't think she'll win the White House, and I think that's a shame because I think she'd be a good president. She's pretty sharp on her own, but I also think that she's smart enough to listen to her husband, who is hands-down the smartest living politician in this country. I don't see a Hillary Clinton administration getting quagmired. Her best shot of making the White House is if Jeb Bush somehow gets the GOP nod. I think that she could beat him.

Whether you'd want to have a beer with her or not, the level of hatred toward Hillary--and her husband--in this country has always astounded me. I've never found anyone who hated them deeply, and there are lots of people like that, who could say just what it was in their policies that prompted such hatred. It has always been "Hillary is a b---h," or "Bill couldn't keep his zipper shut and lied about it." OK, fine. Would you rather have Mister Rogers in the White House?


----------



## SG_67

^ I'm sorry but while there is no definitive "previous work experience" required to be the POTUS, how exactly is she ready?
What has she done and what have been her achievements other than being married to a philanderer who happens to be charming?


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm sorry but while there is no definitive "previous work experience" required to be the POTUS, how exactly is she ready?
> What has she done and what have been her achievements *other than being married to a philanderer who happens to be charming?*


Exactly what I'm talking about. People have a visceral reaction to the Clintons that's based on personalities, not abilities.

She is ready by virtue of having lived in Washington for a long time. She knows how that town works, and doesn't work. She is ready because she's been secretary of state. International experience. She is ready because she's served in the Senate. Legislative experience. She is ready because she has suffered the slings and arrows, and thrown a few herself, and lived to tell the tale.

Can you think of any potential candidate with the breadth of experience that Hillary Clinton possesses? Good luck.

Now, you may disagree with her politics. You may not like her because you think she's a b---h (and I'd say that's a double standard--when a man exhibits the same qualities, he is considered hard-nosed). You may not like her for a lot of reasons. But I don't think you can say that she doesn't have experience. She is, arguably, the most experienced candidate for the office in U.S. history outside of incumbents and Grover Cleveland.

I think you have to give Hillary Clinton a lot of credit. What other woman in U.S. history can match her accomplishments in terms of offices held, both elective and appointive? What other woman has come as close as she has to winning the presidency? She's a serious candidate, and she is taken seriously. You and I can never know, being men, but I suspect that climbing as high as she has is tougher for a woman than it would be for a man, and that might explain why she can come off as gruff. She didn't get ahead by asking the menfolk whether she can brew up a fresh pot of coffee for them.


----------



## eagle2250

^^While I agree with your observation that Hillary C. is far better prepared than Barrack Obama to occupy the Oval office, she spends too much of her time concealing the truth, calling to mind images of a 'cat covering their own excrement. It's time we, the electorate restored some degree of integrity to the Presidency. Frankly I see no one on either side of the aisle, presently being considered that I would be comfortable seeing in the White House. If John McCain were a few years younger, he would be my choice, but frankly I doubt he has sufficient years left on this Earth to serve out one, let alone two terms as President!


----------



## Jovan

You might find this amusing, Eagle:


----------



## 32rollandrock

eagle2250 said:


> ^^While I agree with your observation that Hillary C. is far better prepared than Barrack Obama to occupy the Oval office, *she spends too much of her time concealing the truth,* calling to mind images of a 'cat covering their own excrement. It's time we, the electorate restored some degree of integrity to the Presidency. Frankly I see no one on either side of the aisle, presently being considered that I would be comfortable seeing in the White House. If John McCain were a few years younger, he would be my choice, but frankly I doubt he has sufficient years left on this Earth to serve out one, let alone two terms as President!


What politician doesn't?

Hillary Clinton, in my opinion, has been and is being held to a higher standard than any other candidate. If she has more to explain and, perhaps, cover up, it is because she has a longer track record. It is very easy for young whipper snappers to come in howling about Benghazi and the like. They should try being the man, so to speak, in the arena for awhile before they start casting stones. She has tons more integrity than Dubya and Dick Cheney and a lot of other scuzz bags who were never fit to hold the offices they reached.

Hillary Clinton, in my estimation, has more balls than the whole Bush clan put together, and then some. She certainly has more brain cells than most other potential candidates. And still we keep hearing "stuff" about how she shouldn't be president. I like McCain but he is too knee-jerk to be in the Oval Office, in my opinion. And let's not forget the savings and loan scandal. McCain was one of the Keating Five. Hillary Clinton never prostituted herself the way that he did.


----------



## eagle2250

Jovan said:


> You might find this amusing, Eagle:


LOL. Well played. Thank you Jovan for what will, in all probability, prove to be my best laugh of the day! Although, I'm somewhat embarrassed...should we be laughing that hard in the wee hours of a Sunday morning?


----------



## MaxBuck

eagle2250 said:


> ^^While I agree with your observation that Hillary C. is far better prepared than Barrack Obama to occupy the Oval office, she spends too much of her time concealing the truth...


I know this is an old-fashioned viewpoint, but we could use a bit less candor in the White House. The most honest Presidents in my lifetime have been the worst, an exception perhaps being the incumbent.

This shouldn't be regarded as a statement of support, however, for Ms. Clinton, though I reserve the right to vote for her if the GOP nominates a clueless dweeb like Bachmann, Palin or Cruz.

In fact, I'm a lot more inclined to support Michael Palin than Sarah.


----------

