Rush Limbaugh Demands Sex Videos If Women Use Contraception Covered by Health Insurance - Page 7 - Politics and Economics - Political Forums

2+2

Login

Register

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

Rush Limbaugh Demands Sex Videos If Women Use Contraception Covered by Health Insurance

Subscribe

...

Page 7 of 31

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27

Page 7 of 31

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27

03-02-2012 , 10:12 PM

#151

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Of course the employer has a better bargaining position. The argument is about whether or not the woman who chose to work for a catholic institution was forced into working there.

03-02-2012 , 10:13 PM

#152

Nichlemn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 9,480

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

My boss says I'll be fired if I don't give him a BJ, am I being coerced?. We can play these semantic games all night, the bottom line is that it's lolbad to act as though the employers and employees are bargaining from a position of equal strength, which was Wookie's original point.

Sure, employers typically have more market power than prospective employees. But this is not universally the case (for instance with highly sought-after workers) is not necessarily a very large effect (i.e. it pales in comparison to a single monopoly employer saying "taking it or leave it") and even if it were all true does not make it coercion.

03-02-2012 , 10:14 PM

#153

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 38,351

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

The argument is about whether or not the woman who chose to work for a catholic institution was forced into working there.

At no point has that been the point, and it's not clear why she should have to choose between basic health care and having a law school career just because she wasn't coerced/forced into being a law student. What a great society you guys want to build, I wonder why the rest of the civilized world is doing exactly the opposite.

03-02-2012 , 10:16 PM

#154

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Explain to me how she has to choose between basic health care and being in law school?

03-02-2012 , 10:17 PM

#155

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

Of course the employer has a better bargaining position. The argument is about whether or not the woman who chose to work for a catholic institution was forced into working there.

The contraception issue is a worker protection law.

03-02-2012 , 10:20 PM

#156

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

Explain to me how she has to choose between basic health care and being in law school?

A law student couldn't afford contraception to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome and was denied coverage. Sucks for her, but she knew the risks associated with going to a Catholic school. I guess she should drop out of law school?

03-02-2012 , 10:21 PM

#157

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

So the company is abusing her by not providing coverage of contraception?

Why can't she afford it?

03-02-2012 , 10:23 PM

#158

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

So the company is abusing her by not providing coverage of contraception?

Why can't she afford it?

Because it costs $80/month and she's spending all her money on law school.

03-02-2012 , 10:24 PM

#159

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Because it costs $80/month and she's spending all her money on law school.

So there is absolutely no way for her to spare 80 dollars our of her budget? To tell me someone is capable of going to law school but not capable of getting a job or shaving 80 dollars a month out of their budget is absurd.

03-02-2012 , 10:28 PM

#160

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

So there is absolutely no way for her to spare 80 dollars our of her budget? To tell me someone is capable of going to law school but not capable of getting a job or shaving 80 dollars a month out of their budget is absurd.

03-02-2012 , 10:30 PM

#161

awval999

Election Monitor.

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

A law student couldn't afford contraception to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome and was denied coverage. Sucks for her, but she knew the risks associated with going to a Catholic school. I guess she should drop out of law school?

She could just pay the nine bucks at Wallyworld.

03-02-2012 , 10:30 PM

#162

sards

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,554

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

A law student couldn't afford contraception to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome and was denied coverage.

I don't know anything about this person but I am 100% certain that she could have afforded it if she really wanted it. She chose having more money and/or other luxuries instead of having her pills.

Quote:

Sucks for her, but she knew the risks associated with going to a Catholic school. I guess she should drop out of law school?

No. She should make some sacrifices to save enough money to buy the pills. But if she is unwilling to do that, then yes, she should drop out of law school, or preferably transfer to a law school that will give her what she wants. What she should emphatically not do under any circumstances is act as though she is entitled to free birth control pills because she, like, really needs them.

03-02-2012 , 10:30 PM

#163

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

I want 80 dollars a month, too. I'm sure everyone in America does. Well, in this case she really needs them for a medical reason, but she could still easily afford them if she wanted to make them a priority. Personal responsibility is like a swear word around these parts.

03-02-2012 , 10:31 PM

#164

awval999

Election Monitor.

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Because it costs $80/month and she's spending all her money on law school.

But it doesn't and you are a liar.

http://i.walmart.com/i/if/hmp/fusion...icdruglist.pdf
Under Women's Health on Page 5.

03-02-2012 , 10:31 PM

#165

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 38,351

Also, this religious angle strikes me as a bit of a disingenuous stretch. If we're going to say that Georgetown U is a "religious institution" and that not covering birth control pills to women with ovarian cysts is part of their belief system, then I should be able to say that my restaurant chain is a religious institution and being forced to provide dental is a violation of my religious freedom.

03-02-2012 , 10:33 PM

#166

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Trolly,

You are 100% right, which gets to the fundamental issue at hand.

03-02-2012 , 10:34 PM

#167

Nichlemn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 9,480

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

Also, this religious angle strikes me as a bit of a disingenuous stretch. If we're going to say that Georgetown U is a "religious institution" and that not covering birth control pills to women with ovarian cysts is part of their belief system, then I should be able to say that my restaurant chain is a religious institution and being forced to provide dental is a violation of my religious freedom.

Eight short studies on excuses

Quote:

You respond "Although my policies may seem to be saying religion is more important than other potential reasons for breaking a rule, one can make a non-religious case justifying them. One important feature of major world religions is that their rituals have been fixed for hundreds of years. Allowing people to break laws for religious reasons makes religious people very happy, but does not weaken the laws. After all, we all know the few areas in which the laws of the major US religions as they are currently practiced conflict with secular law, and none of them are big deals. So the general principle 'I will allow people to break laws if it is necessary to established and well-known religious rituals" is relatively low-risk and makes people happy without threatening the concept of law in general. But the general principle 'I will allow people to break laws for recreational reasons' is very high risk, because it's sufficient justification for almost anyone breaking any law."

"I would love to be able to serve everyone the exact meal they most wanted at state dinners. But if I took your request for pasta because you liked pasta, I would have to follow the general principle of giving everyone the meal they most like, which would be prohibitively expensive. By giving Jews kosher meals, I can satisfy a certain particularly strong preference without being forced to satisfy anyone else's."

Though I would agree that a restaurant chain shouldn't be required to provide dental care anyway.

03-02-2012 , 10:34 PM

#168

awval999

Election Monitor.

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,269

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

Also, this religious angle strikes me as a bit of a disingenuous stretch. If we're going to say that Georgetown U is a "religious institution" and that not covering birth control pills to women with ovarian cysts is part of their belief system, then I should be able to say that my restaurant chain is a religious institution and being forced to provide dental is a violation of my religious freedom.

You aren't forced to provide dental care to your employees.

03-02-2012 , 10:36 PM

#169

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by sards

I don't know anything about this person but I am 100% certain that she could have afforded it if she really wanted it. She chose having more money and/or other luxuries instead of having her pills.

No. She should make some sacrifices to save enough money to buy the pills. But if she is unwilling to do that, then yes, she should drop out of law school, or preferably transfer to a law school that will give her what she wants. What she should emphatically not do under any circumstances is act as though she is entitled to free birth control pills because she, like, really needs them.

It's not just about the money, dudes. Like, I guess you think that a school that purports to give health insurance can just deny coverage for anything they don't feel like covering?

03-02-2012 , 10:37 PM

#170

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,320

So far we've talked about coercion and service industries not being able to do what they want because of the government, I wonder what topic could come up next......

03-02-2012 , 10:39 PM

#171

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 38,351

Quote:

You respond "Although my policies may seem to be saying religion is more important than other potential reasons for breaking a rule, one can make a non-religious case justifying them. One important feature of major world religions is that their rituals have been fixed for hundreds of years. Allowing people to break laws for religious reasons makes religious people very happy, but does not weaken the laws. After all, we all know the few areas in which the laws of the major US religions as they are currently practiced conflict with secular law, and none of them are big deals.

I mean come on. Calling Georgetown Law a "religious institution" is like calling Taco Bell a "restaurant" let's drop the religion angle.

In other news, Rush is continuing to stay classy:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203020014

03-02-2012 , 10:39 PM

#172

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

They are allowed to deny coverage for infinite things, but many people think denying birth control is against the rules.

03-02-2012 , 10:40 PM

#173

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

They are allowed to deny coverage for infinite things.

False.

03-02-2012 , 10:41 PM

#174

Nichlemn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 9,480

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

It's not just about the money, dudes. Like, I guess you think that a school that purports to give health insurance can just deny coverage for anything they don't feel like covering?

So long as it's not retrospective. If the fine print says "we don't cover contraceptives" or "we only cover X", then tough titties.

03-02-2012 , 10:42 PM

#175

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Are they allowed to deny coverage for certain things?

Page 7 of 31

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27

Subscribe

...

Page 7 of 31

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 27

m