Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:06 am UTC

Linky

Spoiler:
Rush Limbaugh loses more advertisers over 'slut' remarks

Rush Limbaugh's conservative weekday show airs on 600 radio stations
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Limbaugh apologises for slut slur
Obama calls student in slut slur
Obama changes contraception rule

US radio host Rush Limbaugh has again apologised for calling a law student a "slut" over her views on contraception, as more advertisers deserted his show.

But Sandra Fluke, whose testimony to lawmakers prompted Limbaugh's outburst, dismissed his apology.

On Friday, President Barack Obama called Ms Fluke to offer his support.

The row has stoked an election-year ideological battle over the president's plan to require health insurers to cover contraception.

On Monday, AOL and Tax Resolution Services became the latest firms to withdraw their advertisements from Limbaugh's popular weekday show, taking the number of sponsors who have deserted him to nine.
'Leftists despise me'

Last week, he called the student "a slut" and "a prostitute" after she testified to lawmakers that Catholic-affiliated Georgetown University, where she is a third-year law student, ought to pay for contraception.

As criticism mounted over his comments, Limbaugh apologised in a written statement to the 30-year-old over the weekend.

He took to the air waves on Monday to express his regret again, albeit defiantly.

Sandra Fluke told lawmakers contraception can cost a woman more than $3,000 during law school

"Those two words were inappropriate," he said. "They were uncalled for... I again sincerely apologise to Ms Fluke for using those two words to describe her."

But he also accused her of trying to "force a religious institution to abandon its principles to meet hers".

And in a swipe at his critics, he said: "I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations. It's what we've come to expect from them, but it's way beneath me."

Ms Fluke rejected his latest apology.

"I don't think that a statement like this, issued saying that his choice of words was not the best, changes anything," she told ABC News' The View on Monday.

"Especially when that statement is issued when he's under significant pressure from his sponsors, who have begun to pull support from his show."

She said: "I think any woman who has ever been called these types of names is [shocked] at first."

"But then I tried to see this for what it is, and I believe that what it is, is an attempt to silence me, to silence the millions of women and the men who support them who have been speaking out about this issue and conveying that contraception is an important healthcare need that they need to have met in an affordable, accessible way."

Republican lawmakers had declined to accept Ms Fluke's testimony last month, but she was invited to speak to Democratic lawmakers at an unofficial session.

Anxious to distance themselves from rhetoric that could alienate women voters in an election year, Republicans have joined in the chorus of criticism against Limbaugh.

Senator John McCain, the party's 2008 White House nominee, said on Monday that the radio host's remarks were unacceptable.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said it was "silly" to suggest that Limbaugh's views in any way represented those of the Republican Party.

The row stems from President Obama's 2010 healthcare law that originally required all employers to provide health insurance to cover contraceptives.

Following outrage from Catholic leaders and conservatives, President Obama amended the policy so it would exempt religiously affiliated employers such as hospitals, universities and charities.


So, a few days ago a woman testified saying that contraception can cost up to $3000/yr and that the University should pay for it. Limburger, on his program, said some nasty things. Massive backlash against Limburger. Limburger interrupted his apology to further insult the woman. Now Limburger is in trouble as advertisers stop backing him.

The ultimate irony is that more people would end up supporting Fluke as a protest than if Limburger had just kept his noisy-hole shut.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:16 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Xeio » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:15 am UTC

Heh, you can tell how bad it is when the presidential candidates are all backing away as quickly as possible from him. :P

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby IcedT » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:17 am UTC

If ever there was proof that Limbaugh's only goal in life is to infuriate liberals and moderates, this is it.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Joeldi » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:17 am UTC

I am all for free love, but I do not see why a university should be held responsible for its students' sex lives. I do think that giving out free condoms or whatever is a good idea, but shouldn't be a legal requirement. Maybe my bitter-virginess is clouding my judgement, but yeah, you want to have sex, you and your partner can damn well be the ones to pay for it.

On topic: Yeah, Limbaugh sounds like total douche, so this is good news.
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Xeio » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:33 am UTC

Joeldi wrote:I am all for free love, but I do not see why a university should be held responsible for its students' sex lives. I do think that giving out free condoms or whatever is a good idea, but shouldn't be a legal requirement. Maybe my bitter-virginess is clouding my judgement, but yeah, you want to have sex, you and your partner can damn well be the ones to pay for it.
Are you familiar with the topic at all? This isn't about condoms, it's about female birth control pills, and their inclusion in healthcare insurance provided by employers like all other preventative care.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Joeldi » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:37 am UTC

No of course I'm not familiar with the topic. Do you think I'd say something completely irrelevant if I was? I'm just a bitter virgin. Silly Xeio.
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby IcedT » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:41 am UTC

Joeldi wrote:No of course I'm not familiar with the topic. Do you think I'd say something completely irrelevant if I was? I'm just a bitter virgin.

I'll give you a crash course. Basically, the For camp says: "they're an important and effective form of preventative care, and should be covered," and the Against camp says: "SLUT!"

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby firechicago » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:57 am UTC

The thing that keeps pulling me up short here is the fact that Rush and his imitators seem to lack even the first clue as to how hormonal birth control works. They keep saying variants of "she has so much sex that it costs her $3000 a year for her birth control." Hormonal birth control doesn't care how much sex you have. It costs the same whether you have sex once a year (or never!) or whether you have sex with a new partner every day and twice on Sundays. Didn't these people have 8th grade health classes?

(Silly me, obviously not. Yet another argument for universal sex education.)

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Rush Limbaugh calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:58 am UTC

The be a bit more fair, the Against camp says "But what if employers don't want to!" to which the correct response is "employers don't get to skimp on their responsibility to provide proper health insurance to their employees because they don't want to."

firechicago wrote:Didn't these people have 8th grade health classes?

Health classes don't cover contraception any more. Seriously, I looked at the index in my 9th grade health textbook and "contraception" was not mentioned once.

Also, why is Rush's last name suddenly a kind of cheese? Are the mods having fun with word replacement again? Limbaugh
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Bears!
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Bears! » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:09 am UTC

Joeldi wrote:I am all for free love, but I do not see why a university should be held responsible for its students' sex lives. I do think that giving out free condoms or whatever is a good idea, but shouldn't be a legal requirement. Maybe my bitter-virginess is clouding my judgement, but yeah, you want to have sex, you and your partner can damn well be the ones to pay for it.

On topic: Yeah, Limbaugh sounds like total douche, so this is good news.


Wha? This has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. The whole topic being debated is about whether or not religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should cover birth control under insurance plans. No one is requiring anything except that birth control be accessible to individuals who want it. Considering that birth control isn't used just for birth control, it isn't just about the sex lives of students.

Let's also not forget the most important point: these debates about birth control are fundamentally about *women's health* (or they should be, though of course there are people like Rush Limbaugh who want to demonize women who want to have sex but will ignore the fact that Viagra is covered by healthcare). If health insurance is intended to help cover the cost of healthcare, why would we omit birth control? After all, birth control ensures the well-being of women, particularly those who are either financially or emotionally incapable of handling pregnancy or children. Isn't that *why we have medicine*?
"It was books that taught me that the things that tormented me most were the very things that connected me with all the people who were alive, or who had ever been alive." - James Baldwin

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Torchship » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:12 am UTC

It seems rather odd for a university to be required to provide healthcare to students by a law designed to provide healthcare to employees. The person in question does not appear to be an employee of the university, so I don't really see how they should be entitled to healthcare from the university under this law (any more than I am entitled to healthcare from my local supermarket). I suppose if the university already offers healthcare, then it is reasonable to pressure the university to offer all types of healthcare (i.e. include contraception).

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby lutzj » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:26 am UTC

Bears! wrote:...(or they should be, though of course there are people like Rush Limbaugh who want to demonize women who want to have sex but will ignore the fact that Viagra is covered by healthcare)...


I'm sure most of the people opposing contraceptive coverage would also oppose coverage of Viagra if you asked them.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Xeio » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:48 am UTC

Torchship wrote:It seems rather odd for a university to be required to provide healthcare to students by a law designed to provide healthcare to employees. The person in question does not appear to be an employee of the university, so I don't really see how they should be entitled to healthcare from the university under this law (any more than I am entitled to healthcare from my local supermarket). I suppose if the university already offers healthcare, then it is reasonable to pressure the university to offer all types of healthcare (i.e. include contraception).
The healthcare reform has several facets which cover health insurance as a whole (though many relevant to employers, since they're now required to provide it I believe). Such as the % of premiums that is required to go towards patient care, the standards of care required, and pre-existing condition coverage (and those will affect all health insurance plans).

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:54 am UTC

Bears! wrote:f health insurance is intended to help cover the cost of healthcare, why would we omit birth control? After all, birth control ensures the well-being of women, particularly those who are either financially or emotionally incapable of handling pregnancy or children. Isn't that *why we have medicine*?

What exactly is being insured in this case? Insurance is fundamentally a risk pool to hedge against rare events - "insuring" something as mundane as birth control is practically just a cash transfer from gays to the straight. I agree it's consistent to cover something like this if you're going to cover Viagra, but as a personal fan of catastrophic health insurance this is but yet another verse in my litany of grievances against the health system.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:55 am UTC

lutzj wrote:
Bears! wrote:...(or they should be, though of course there are people like Rush Limbaugh who want to demonize women who want to have sex but will ignore the fact that Viagra is covered by healthcare)...


I'm sure most of the people opposing contraceptive coverage would also oppose coverage of Viagra if you asked them.


I'm not sure if you understand the issue actually. Its not about sex, its more about contraceptives. A better example would maybe be condoms perhaps... although not necessarily because it avoids some issues.

The Morning After Pill for instance is a Contragestive. That is, it activates after the embryo has been created but before the embryo enters the uterus... or something like that. (I'm not a doctor, sorry). Ultimately however, for those who believe that human life begins at conception, killing the embryo at this stage would imply ending a human life.

Viagra is completely tangential to this issue. Sex is completely tangential to the issue. Its about what is and what isn't life. Its a bit more extreme of a view than your typical pro-lifer, but its the logical extension of it.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:58 am UTC

It's not really an issue of that either. It doesn't matter why employers wouldn't want to provide full healthcare to their employees, they don't get to skimp on that.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Nordic Einar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:07 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
Bears! wrote:f health insurance is intended to help cover the cost of healthcare, why would we omit birth control? After all, birth control ensures the well-being of women, particularly those who are either financially or emotionally incapable of handling pregnancy or children. Isn't that *why we have medicine*?

What exactly is being insured in this case? Insurance is fundamentally a risk pool to hedge against rare events - "insuring" something as mundane as birth control is practically just a cash transfer from gays to the straight. I agree it's consistent to cover something like this if you're going to cover Viagra, but as a personal fan of catastrophic health insurance this is but yet another verse in my litany of grievances against the health system.


Oh hey ps us homos use contraception and birth control too. Your heterosexism is particularly hilarious in the context of this thread, since Fluke was originally petitioning congress on behalf of her lesbian friend who needs hormonal birth control to help manage her ovarian cysts.

User avatar
Bears!
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Bears! » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:24 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
Bears! wrote:f health insurance is intended to help cover the cost of healthcare, why would we omit birth control? After all, birth control ensures the well-being of women, particularly those who are either financially or emotionally incapable of handling pregnancy or children. Isn't that *why we have medicine*?

What exactly is being insured in this case? Insurance is fundamentally a risk pool to hedge against rare events - "insuring" something as mundane as birth control is practically just a cash transfer from gays to the straight. I agree it's consistent to cover something like this if you're going to cover Viagra, but as a personal fan of catastrophic health insurance this is but yet another verse in my litany of grievances against the health system.


I can't really respond to this because I'm too ignorant. I take your point because my assertion is basically assuming that health insurance should cover these mundane things in the first place. My frustration stems from a lack of concern for the reproductive rights of women and is not necessarily an argument about whether or not health insurance should exist in the first place (or what health plans should be used). This is something I'm still actively researching.
"It was books that taught me that the things that tormented me most were the very things that connected me with all the people who were alive, or who had ever been alive." - James Baldwin

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:26 am UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:
Bears! wrote:f health insurance is intended to help cover the cost of healthcare, why would we omit birth control? After all, birth control ensures the well-being of women, particularly those who are either financially or emotionally incapable of handling pregnancy or children. Isn't that *why we have medicine*?

What exactly is being insured in this case? Insurance is fundamentally a risk pool to hedge against rare events - "insuring" something as mundane as birth control is practically just a cash transfer from gays to the straight. I agree it's consistent to cover something like this if you're going to cover Viagra, but as a personal fan of catastrophic health insurance this is but yet another verse in my litany of grievances against the health system.


Oh hey ps us homos use contraception and birth control too. Your heterosexism is particularly hilarious in the context of this thread, since Fluke was originally petitioning congress on behalf of her lesbian friend who needs hormonal birth control to help manage her ovarian cysts.


Straight people are more likely to use birth control than homosexual people, even including the fact that (openly) homosexual people tend to be more liberal in their views on sex/birth control. Therefore requiring birth control to be covered moves more wealth from homo/bi/trans/etc-sexuals to heterosexuals than in reverse.

But anyway, I tend to agree with Bubbles on insurance; I believe that insurance should generally only cover catastrophe. The trend of insurers getting involved in as much of the medical process as possible is a huge problem in the US.

Bears! wrote:<Re: Bubbles>

I can't really respond to this because I'm too ignorant. I take your point because my assertion is basically assuming that health insurance should cover these mundane things in the first place. My frustration stems from a lack of concern for the reproductive rights of women and is not necessarily an argument about whether or not health insurance should exist in the first place (or what health plans should be used). This is something I'm still actively researching.


The thing about the mundane stuff, is that you end up paying more if it's insured. Let's say you will have 2 checkups and a dental cleaning a year. The total cost will be $500. If your insurance pays for all of it, the insurance company has to charge you $625* instead. I buy insurance for the things that I don't have to pay for every year, like cancer treatments or major surgery, not for the stuff I'm going to have to do on a regular basis anyway.

*Insurance companies usually pay out about 80 cents in benefits for every dollar in premiums. While this might seem odd, keep in mind all the paperwork involved, fraud detection and audits, the legal expenses, other business expenses, etc.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:39 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:35 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:It's not really an issue of that either. It doesn't matter why employers wouldn't want to provide full healthcare to their employees, they don't get to skimp on that.


The Viagra analogy has just been getting in my nerves. Jon Steward said it last week and everyone has been parroting him since then. It really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why religious institutions object to certain contraceptives.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:36 am UTC

I liked Stewart's other argument; that if the institutions pay the employees cash, and the employees spend that cash on birth control, the institution is paying for birth control either way.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:40 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I liked Stewart's other argument; that if the institutions pay the employees cash, and the employees spend that cash on birth control, the institution is paying for birth control either way.


This train of argument only serves to reject efforts of compromise. It is this exact line of thinking that has pushed religious institutions to back the Blunt Amendment.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

++$_
Mo' Money
Posts: 2370
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:06 am UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby ++$_ » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:44 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
Bears! wrote:f health insurance is intended to help cover the cost of healthcare, why would we omit birth control? After all, birth control ensures the well-being of women, particularly those who are either financially or emotionally incapable of handling pregnancy or children. Isn't that *why we have medicine*?

What exactly is being insured in this case? Insurance is fundamentally a risk pool to hedge against rare events - "insuring" something as mundane as birth control is practically just a cash transfer from gays to the straight. I agree it's consistent to cover something like this if you're going to cover Viagra, but as a personal fan of catastrophic health insurance this is but yet another verse in my litany of grievances against the health system.
In this country, health insurance is more like a comprehensive health care plan -- you get everything, from routine aspects like physicals and birth control to extraordinary expenses like heart surgery.

There are a lot of good reasons for it to be that way. Most notably, if you have to pay extra for every bit of preventative medicine you use, but not for catastrophic risks, people will skip the preventative care and let the insurance company assume the (now more common) catastrophic risks, which is the opposite of what we want them to do.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Shivahn » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:52 am UTC

Yeah, that's the thing. Even if we took health insurance to be explicitly and exclusively about dealing with catastrophic medical costs, we'd be better off covering things like birth control, because refusing to spend a slight amount on pills ends up costing a catastrophic amount in abortions or pregnancies.

And if we don't cover the abortion or pregnancies under the plan, then we're not using insurance to deal with catastrophic medical costs, contrary to our initial assumption.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Garm » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:54 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But anyway, I tend to agree with Bubbles on insurance; I believe that insurance should generally only cover catastrophe. The trend of insurers getting involved in as much of the medical process as possible is a huge problem in the US.


Except insurance agencies are businesses so they're mandated to make as much profit as possible (or answer to their shareholders!). Usually this is a shitty thing when it comes to health care but in this case, contraceptives are way cheaper than pregnancies, planned or unplanned so it's in the best interests of the insurance agencies bottom line to provide access to contraception (and all sorts of preventative care).

edit to fix quotes
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Bears!
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Bears! » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:58 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The Viagra analogy has just been getting in my nerves. Jon Steward said it last week and everyone has been parroting him since then. It really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why religious institutions object to certain contraceptives.


and previously

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm not sure if you understand the issue actually. Its not about sex, its more about contraceptives. A better example would maybe be condoms perhaps... although not necessarily because it avoids some issues.

Viagra is completely tangential to this issue. Sex is completely tangential to the issue. Its about what is and what isn't life. Its a bit more extreme of a view than your typical pro-lifer, but its the logical extension of it.


Sorry, it's not clear to me if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but I think I agree with you (at least that it shouldn't be about *sex*). My point is that Limbaugh and others like him are making it about sex, when it isn't. And, when they do make it about sex, they ignore the fact that, in light of that perspective, men obtain Viagra through insurance (which is *exclusively* about sex). Limbaugh turning a blind eye to the Viagra analogy only serves to reinforce clearly that he is just being misogynistic in his comments towards Sandra Fluke, especially by making it about sex.
"It was books that taught me that the things that tormented me most were the very things that connected me with all the people who were alive, or who had ever been alive." - James Baldwin

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:04 am UTC

++$_ wrote:There are a lot of good reasons for it to be that way. Most notably, if you have to pay extra for every bit of preventative medicine you use, but not for catastrophic risks, people will skip the preventative care and let the insurance company assume the (now more common) catastrophic risks, which is the opposite of what we want them to do.

Well, this is kind of a mixed case. "Preventative care" oftentimes adds to lifetime costs (smoking and obesity bring down lifetime health expenditure). Now, I'm not of the opinion that early death is a desirable way to bring down health costs, but I do think that gung-ho mandates to extend preventative care could add unnecessary costs to a system strained near the point of breaking.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Nordic Einar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:05 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Straight people are more likely to use birth control than homosexual people, even including the fact that (openly) homosexual people tend to be more liberal in their views on sex/birth control. Therefore requiring birth control to be covered moves more wealth from homo/bi/trans/etc-sexuals to heterosexuals than in reverse.


Oh, really? You've got citations for that claim, of course, right? I mean, particularily that bit about bisexuals being less likely to use birth control than purely heterosexuals. Or, like, the inclusion of trans folks in discussions of sexual orientation being even remotely relevant, since trans folks using birth control has little to do with their trans status and more to do with their sexual orientation/relationship makeup.

Also, like, (for example) most women have a uterus. That doesn't make "hormonal birth control is for women/all women are concerned with hormonal birth control" any less cissexist, because "Women's" reproductive health is still real fucking relevant to tran men and less relevant to trans women.

Besides, do we really think the original statement was made with a complex analysis of the likeliness of use vs. cost ratios for homosexuals and heterosexuals in mind, and that it was determined that more "homo money" is being spent on birth control for heterosexuals than "hetero money" is being spent on birth control for homosexuals? Or do you think it's more likely that the idea that us queers might use birth control, or that queer sex might require birth control, simply wasn't a part of the thought process at all?

This is the same kind of shit that leads to trans folks being completely left out of discussions around the sexual health of people w/ a uterus.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:25 am UTC

If health care only covered catastrophic costs, I and people like me couldn't afford their medication. I take a few psych meds that are way too fucking expensive for me to purchase without insurance.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Prefanity » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:33 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:If health care only covered catastrophic costs, I and people like me couldn't afford their medication. I take a few psych meds that are way too fucking expensive for me to purchase without insurance.


And for some of us, even simple medical visits would be right out. For instance, regular dental cleanings. I personally pay out of pocket for mine, but if I were a bit more worse off, I wouldn't be able to go at all.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:53 am UTC

Bears! wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The Viagra analogy has just been getting in my nerves. Jon Steward said it last week and everyone has been parroting him since then. It really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why religious institutions object to certain contraceptives.


and previously

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm not sure if you understand the issue actually. Its not about sex, its more about contraceptives. A better example would maybe be condoms perhaps... although not necessarily because it avoids some issues.

Viagra is completely tangential to this issue. Sex is completely tangential to the issue. Its about what is and what isn't life. Its a bit more extreme of a view than your typical pro-lifer, but its the logical extension of it.


Sorry, it's not clear to me if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but I think I agree with you (at least that it shouldn't be about *sex*). My point is that Limbaugh and others like him are making it about sex, when it isn't. And, when they do make it about sex, they ignore the fact that, in light of that perspective, men obtain Viagra through insurance (which is *exclusively* about sex). Limbaugh turning a blind eye to the Viagra analogy only serves to reinforce clearly that he is just being misogynistic in his comments towards Sandra Fluke, especially by making it about sex.


It was more of a "why people disagree with contraceptive coverage" post than an agree/disagree thing. Its more about lutzj's response as opposed to yours.

All people who turn this into a sex issue (including Limbaugh) are completely missing the point of disagreement in the debate. Although... maybe for Limbaugh it really is a misogynistic sex thing. But he's an asshole so whatever...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:55 am UTC

Yeah, I think we get that a lot of people frame this as an embryo rights issue (which it isn't), but the arguments regarding viagra are specifically directed at those who frame it as a paying-for-sex issue (which it also isn't).
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:10 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Yeah, I think we get that a lot of people frame this as an embryo rights issue (which it isn't), but the arguments regarding viagra are specifically directed at those who frame it as a paying-for-sex issue (which it also isn't).


It seems clear to me that this is an embryo issue however. Some of the contraceptives under question work after the embryo has already been formed. In particular, the entire class of contragestives. That is why this debate has been escalated so much.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:16 am UTC

Prefanity wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:If health care only covered catastrophic costs, I and people like me couldn't afford their medication. I take a few psych meds that are way too fucking expensive for me to purchase without insurance.


And for some of us, even simple medical visits would be right out. For instance, regular dental cleanings. I personally pay out of pocket for mine, but if I were a bit more worse off, I wouldn't be able to go at all.

But where do you think this money comes from? If everyone gets two dental cleanings a year, all you're doing is giving the insurance company money they just give you back in the form of cleanings (plus expense for paperwork).

@sourmilk - you make a fine point, I should be a little more specific. I think insurance should cover persistent problems if they're uncommon (same goes for something like ovarian cysts), but not problems that most people encounter. What it comes down to is health insurance should distribute cost, but when insurance covers everyday things you're just wasting money on bureaucracy instead of actually helping anyone.

Anyway, I didn't really mean to turn this into a big thing, the health care debate is well tread ground hereabouts - I mainly just wanted to point out a different view on preventative care that was a little more nuanced than Rush's bile.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:22 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:It seems clear to me that this is an embryo issue however. Some of the contraceptives under question work after the embryo has already been formed. In particular, the entire class of contragestives. That is why this debate has been escalated so much.

I get that's what people are upset about, but why they're upset is ultimately irrelevant to the issue. The question is whether employers should be able to select what healthcare they want to give their employees based on their own personal beliefs. The answer is no, they shouldn't. At no point do the specifics of those beliefs matter.

Bubbles McCoy wrote:@sourmilk - you make a fine point,

I almost never hear this. Particularly on this forum. I think I am going to print it out in a 48"x36" poster, frame it, cover the frame in bulletproof glass, and carry it around with me wherever I go.

I should be a little more specific. I think insurance should cover persistent problems if they're uncommon (same goes for something like ovarian cysts), but not problems that most people encounter. What it comes down to is health insurance should distribute cost, but when insurance covers everyday things you're just wasting money on bureaucracy instead of actually helping anyone.

...maybe. Theoretically this makes sense, as the same amount of money is being spent by the same people to get the same amount of care, just with insurance there's a bureaucracy in the way. However, this discourages preventative care, which could make the cost of emergency / uncommon problem treatment go up. Now, what we could do is have insurance companies incentivize preventative care by reducing prices on insurance proportional to the probabilistic benefit the preventative care has, but at that point the line between being covered for preventative care and not being covered is blurred. So, as I said, "...maybe". It depends on how the specific numbers work out.

I mainly just wanted to point out a different view on preventative care that was a little more nuanced than Rush's bile.

I'm shocked. Are you suggesting that a conservative talking head oversimplifies issues?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Proginoskes
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:07 am UTC
Location: Sitting Down

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Proginoskes » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:28 am UTC

Xeio wrote:Heh, you can tell how bad it is when the presidential candidates are all backing away as quickly as possible from him. :P


Especially santorum.

Oops, I meant Santorum.

Also, a lot of his sponsors are dropping their ads from his program.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:29 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:It seems clear to me that this is an embryo issue however. Some of the contraceptives under question work after the embryo has already been formed. In particular, the entire class of contragestives. That is why this debate has been escalated so much.

I get that's what people are upset about, but why they're upset is ultimately irrelevant to the issue. The question is whether employers should be able to select what healthcare they want to give their employees based on their own personal beliefs. The answer is no, they shouldn't. At no point do the specifics of those beliefs matter.


Clearly we're going in circles about this issue by now. We've both made our points and we're likely not going to change our views. I'm satisfied with leaving it as it is.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:35 am UTC

My point there actually wasn't to try to convince you that employers should be made to provide healthcare for contraception, just that this isn't a question of whether zygotes constitute life, but whether thinking that zygotes constitute life is a good enough reason to deny specific healthcare. The truth value of the statement "a zygote should have all the rights of a human" is totally irrelevant until we ascertain whether or not the belief in that statement gives employers the right to deny employees specific healthcare.

For the record, I do somewhat sympathize with your pro-life stance, even though I don't agree with it. Your stance clearly isn't based on misogyny (as is the case with a lot of, if not most pro-lifers), and I know women who've needed to get abortions (for life-saving purposes) and who, despite recognizing the necessity, felt very uncomfortable with it and depressed by the necessary termination of an embryo. Abortion isn't pleasant and, in my experience, even those who are pro-choice agree that it should be avoided.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Proginoskes
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:07 am UTC
Location: Sitting Down

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby Proginoskes » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:12 am UTC

Just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger ...

Rush is "apologizing" and now has a reason why he called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" repeatedly for 3 days on his show. Despite saying "I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability."

It's a left-wing plot.

Sure thing, Rush.

You still taking those painkillers? You might want to cut back the dosage a bit.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/0 ... via=blog_1

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Rush Limburger calls Student 'Slut', Backlash

Postby sourmìlk » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:24 am UTC

Who is that "apology" directed at? Obviously not the left, as he outright insults them, and not the right, as they wouldn't think he needed to apologize. I really have no idea who he's trying to convince.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leovan and 19 guests