Fluke has managed to miss the point almost as badly as limbaugh. I mean limbaugh is clearly the biggest ****** in this story, he must feel like he's gotta step up the ******edness to fill the void left by breitbart.

Of course, it doesn't matter if she's a slut or not. therock.jpg

Or maybe you can just draw the line at some point rather than needing a logical absolute that links a lot of things in a vague web of connection.

If you can explain to me how viagra can be paid on health insurance but not the contraceptive pill which has medical benefits beyond not getting pregnant, though getting pregnant is HUGELY costly for insurance companies, then you might make better headway.

also, of course, the word "insurance" is being criminally abused.

If she is would that be a bad thing?

Phill you probably don't realize how "insurance" in this country works. A huge chunk of it has very little to do with controlling costs and a lot to do with providing benefits to workers. If an employer feels providing certain things to their workforce gives them an edge in talent retention then they do that.

Also I like the subtle misogyny in implying that only men get any benefit from viagra.

Not being able to get hard is a recognized medical condition. As far as I'm aware, ovulating every month isn't. Do insurance companies not cover the pill when prescribed to treat an ongoing medical issue? Serious question btw, I'm not sure.

Also, I do think insurance companies are dumb if they don't cover the pill.

I'd tap that ass all night long.

Some Catholic entities want to deny coverage of birth control pills prescribed even for things like polycystic ovaries, although that's rare. Some that just want to deny contraceptive coverage but that will cover pills for other things just send a bureaucrat out to grill the woman with polycystic ovaries to make sure she's not a lying slut, and sometimes they'll deny her anyway.

Im pretty sure the woman referenced in the OP is the one who told the story in congress about how her friend couldnt get her insurance company to cover her birth control that ended up with her getting a huge tennis ball sized cyst and meant she had to get her ovary removed.

I wasnt aware of medical benefits of viagra beyond treating erectile dysfunction. Im also not arguing against viagra either.

You kinda need to think this through imo.

Oh, ****. Nevermind, this is about the Obamacare regulation (I really need to keep up). No, the government shouldn't force private businesses or insurance providers to cover it blah blah blah freemarket blah blah stupid government. I'm leaving now.

Seems like a good point in favor of moving away from employer-supplied health care asap.

Unwanted pregnancy may not fall under the category of illness, but is certainly a serious medical concern.

I think Rush is back on percs, this argument was never suppose to be about contraception but no, he plays right into Obama's hand. Total friggin moron. I loved the part where the POTUS calls the girl to console her, well played, stooping to the level of a snake oil salesman but hey it's an election year.

But it doesn't cost $1000/year. So where does she get that figure?

It depends, but it very well can cost that much for people without coverage:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu.../BC_costs.html

Just because insurance doesn't pay for it doesn't mean that they won't buy it anyway. That's the assumption you are making that's incorrect.

A huge percentage of potential contraceptive insurance users will buy it anyway. Say the number is 90%. Of the 10%, how many get pregnant that year? I'll be generous and say 30%. How many of those will get an abortion or give away the baby? Say 1/3 of them (could be off here, but I thought this was in range with numbers I've seen).

So you have 2% of people having a baby. If contraception costs more than 1/50th of a birth and subsequent care, you have a case for savings. If not, just passing the buck is the "cheaper" move.

Online it's like 3 months for 50 bucks

We are talking about people who are covered, but not for contraceptive. I'm not aware of any insurance that exists that doesn't cover an OBGYN for an annual visit (which women would be doing regardless of birth control). There's a co-pay, but they would be doing this anyway (or at least should have been).

Doctor visits would still have been covered IIRC. Supply is $15 to $80 per month. That's a huge range. Last time I bought it, it was $30/month. Not sure where the $80/month stuff is, but maybe inflation is that much of a bitch. $360 a year.

Sure, there are more costly options, but those are not mentioned by her.

Planned parenthood says $15-50/mo.

And remember, we're talking about people with insurance here (i.e. people with jobs).

Judging by her appearance, she probably has to spend a great deal of money getting her dates liquored up. I would probably need at least a 12 pack in me to consider intercourse with her.

Except when they are not people with jobs. Like the students at Georgetown law.

What was it supposed to be about? The depth of Rush's blathering was someone pays for something related to sex= prostitute= slut = let me see your sex life. It's about as perverse of reasoning as the old Catholic priests who licked their lips while inspected naked women accused of witchcraft for sexual intercourse with the devil. The desires and repressions of both are fairly obvious to see without having to be told

Employer-supplied group health care, as has been explained repeatedly in this forum, predates the tax benefits. It's a market outcome because of how insurance works.