This is where the mantra of personal responsibility runs counter to pragmatism where government and society are involved. If the government can require a service that somehow runs counter to the idea of absolute personal responsibility even though that service is a net positive financially and societally then what's the problem with that? They would rather stay ideologically rigid than do something that makes a lot of sense. It's dumb.
Long term it will cost us less as there will be less unwanted pregnancies and possibly fewer abortions. Less venereal diseases.. Long term the costs should be less. If plans cover Viagra they can cover birth control, especially since in the case of the pill it has other therapeutic benefits.
You got it backwards. The GOP did not try to force employers to provide coverage with birth control. They also did not call Fluke to testify. It is a distraction from the economy, which is why the Democrats have forced the issue to center stage. Obama would love to talk about social issues and not the economy. His approval rating on the economy is in the toilet.
Wow, those Democrats are so clever hiding those improving economy numbers. Hopefully they can keep the American public from seeing the unemployment numbers when they drop under 8% in the next coming months. I'm going to guess that in about 6 months when the economy is still improving that you will then find a way to give all the credit to the House Republicans. The Republican party is so pathetic. I'm gonna go bang some sluts now.
Why do so many people in this thread hate women so much? What gives Rush the right to call her a slut when he was the one who tried to smuggle Viagra into a third world country (probably to have sex with a prostitute-hope you have a condom, dude) I seriously don't know why all women are not gay yet. This is just going to cause higher rates of STD's and Aids, more unwanted pregnancy, and like this girls friend the inability to ever have children.
Birth control pills have other advantages besides preventing conception. Many women take them for these other reasons.
ULY 6--Rush Limbaugh was traveling with four other men--including the producers of the hit show "24"--when he was detained over a mislabeled bottle of Viagra found in his luggage during a Customs search, records show. A Department of Homeland Security passenger manifest shows that Limbaugh and his four buddies flew from the Dominican Republic on a Gulfstream IV jet owned by Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates his radio program. Limbaugh returned to Palm Beach, Florida on June 26 with Joel Surnow, "24"'s co-creator and executive producer and Howard Gordon, another of the Fox hit's executive producers (Hollywood agent Jeffrey Benson was also part of the Limbaugh quintet). With all those guys in tow, it is unclear what the radio host needed with the 29 100mg Viagra pills listed on a seized property receipt. The passenger manifest was among several documents released today by the Palm Beach County State's Attorney in response to a TSG open records request. Included in the material released was a copy of the handwritten statement Limbaugh provided investigators after he was detained upon the discovery of the impotency drug. In that statement, Limbaugh claimed that the drug had been prescribed in his doctor’s name “to protect my privacy, given the potential embarrassing nature of Viagra.” An affidavit sworn three days later by Limbaugh was also released. In that document, Limbaugh explains that the Viagra "was intended for my exclusive use" and that the drug had been prescribed in the name of his drug treatment doctor, Steven Strumwasser. (4 pages) http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party It should be noted that the Dominican Republic is a well-known sex-trafficking location, particularly attractive to pedophiles it seems.
Dude I dont understand how no one sees whats happening here. NO ONE HATES WOMEN here.. This thread/topic has nothing to do with if Fluke is really a slut or not. It has everything to do with POLITICS. Fluke make some statements/has a view point that Rush disagrees with. Much like this board instead of debating the issue he resorted to name calling. The only reason he called her a slut was because they have different political idealogies on healthcare, insurance, etc. FranchiseBlade, my one line 'she's a slut, and ugly too' was meant as a joke. Obviously I don't agree with her and my view points will always lean towards limited government/conservatism. But I try not to take anything too seriously these days and was just messing around. I just find it annoying whether by her doing or the media all the attention this stupid topic is getting. Now Obama is even involved for christ sake! and she just seems to be milking the I'm so offended angle to get even more MEDIA attention. Rush is an entertainer and part of his persona is to say controversial things. Why the F is Obama as the President of the United States responding to him? What should have happened is ignore him and move on and the stupid media should not have blown it out of porportion as some sort of huge controversy.
Funny thing that the ditto-heads here can't even agree that Rush is fat. First, I was mistaken, the photos I posted were from CPAC 2009. But here's a photo from RushLimbaugh.com's "ditto cam" (i.e. videos of him doing his show) on 2/29/2012 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/videos For a larger version, got to the 0:30 mark of this clip from ABC News: http://youtu.be/Jfb9f7yFYgw
I agree with this part of your statement very strongly. But in answer to your (rhetorical?) question: Obama is taking a moment to connect with his base. It's low hanging fruit for that.
LOL, viagra is covered? Then I don't see a problem at all. But they can also include condoms as well.
Nancy Pelosi once had trouble finding a babysitter. So her aspiration these days is "doing for child care what we did for health care reform"—pushing a comprehensive solution. In fact, it's not just an aspiration—it's at the top of her agenda. This sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea. But if "we" really are going to do for child care what we have done for health care, the U.S. will have to take some intermediate steps in order to replicate the experience faithfully. (1) First, the U.S. should create a labor shortage by launching a major war and drafting men and women to fight. (2) Then it should impose wage and price controls, as Washington did during WWII, to prevent employers from bidding up the price of labor. (That would further drive up the prices for war materiel, which would be costly and inconvenient to the government. The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, for instance, stipulated that its aim was "to assure that defense appropriations are not dissipated by excessive prices.") (3) The president—Barack Obama, presumably—should then establish a War Manpower Commission with the power to forbid people to change jobs, as just such a commission did during WWII. This will prevent individuals from skirting around the wage controls by quitting one job to take another that pays more. (4) Practices such as these will encourage employers to compete for scarce labor by offering non-wage benefits. During WWII, employer-provided health coverage was one such benefit. It is reasonable to assume employer-provided child care would be another one today. (5) To facilitate the spread of employer-provided child care, Washington should grant it preferential tax status, as it does with health care. The IRS should back this up by declaring that child-care benefits do not count as wages. (6) To further ensconce the third-party-payer system, the National Labor Relations Board should declare, contra the IRS finding, that child-care benefits do count as wages for the purposes of collective bargaining (just as it did with health coverage). This, combined with the favored tax status, will encourage labor unions to push for extravagantly generous child-care policies for current workers and for pensioners. (7) Washington then should enact two major new entitlement programs akin to Medicaid and Medicare, guaranteeing government-funded babysitting for the poor and elderly. Washington should produce wildly low-balled estimates of the future costs of such programs. (8) While all this is going on, the states should impose complex bureaucratic oversight of the child-care system—especially a "Certificate of Need" program through which bureaucrats, rather than the free market, would decide whether new child-care facilities are needed and may be allowed to open. That way, existing child-care facilities will have government allies in their attempts to limit competition that might hold down costs. (9) Likewise, professional child care associations should lobby Congress for market-entry barriers requiring providers to obtain highly restricted licenses for performing even the most mundane procedures. (10) Meanwhile, politicians at both the state and federal level should propose a host of various mandates on employer-provided child care—requiring such programs to pay for trips to the zoo, cultural institutions and parks; to cover weekend child care for romantic parents' getaways; and to cover full-time au pair services for parents of children with special needs. This will help drive up the cost of insurance even faster. (11) As the share of GNP devoted to child care begins to spiral out of control and the government assumes control of 50 cents out of every child-care dollar, liberals and progressives should argue that this proves the current free market in child care doesn't work, so the government should stop sitting on the sidelines and step in to fix everything. (12) Ideally, the stepping in would consist of a complete government takeover of child care: a single-payer system in which the government does all the child care in the country, and nobody else is allowed to. (13) Short of that, Washington should pass legislation forbidding providers to turn anyone away, and requiring all Americans to buy child-care coverage—whether they have children or not. This should be part of a massive child-care overhaul that will drive costs up even further and prove equally untenable. Then the country can go back and try Step 12—and we will all live happily ever after. Right? http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...es-lets-do-for-child-care-what-we-ar-1499416/
In general we're talking about people who've been responsible enough to find jobs that provide health insurance, and are able to get into universities like Georgetown. I'm not too worried about them all of a sudden becoming irresponsible sheep.
