View Full Version : Who sponsors people like Rush Limbaugh?
I've often wondered what kind of advertisers would sponsor "shock jocks" at either extreme end of the political spectrum. It would seem lucrative, possibly, depending on who their audience is, and how likely they are to be able to convert those viewers/listeners/readers into paying customers. But it would also seem like a headache for their corporate communications people, as they can be incendiary on a regular basis. Here in the land of free speech, I guess it's all in where they can make the most money.
The brave (or foolish) souls who continue to sponsor Rush Limbaugh following the latest controversy are listed thusly. Many have dropped out....too much hassle must mess with their bottom line. I'm interested in seeing whether there's any fallout locally from this.....one of the sponsors is here in my own community, strangely.
CARBONITE, Inc.
Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee
American Forces Network
Mission Pharmacal Company
Life Quotes, Inc.
Life Lock
AOL
TaxResolution.com
AOL? Really?
AOL has been a sponsor for years. I didn't know that AOL was even still a internet entity were it not for Rush's show.
The problem is that many of these also sponsor the shrill left-leaning shows as well. They seem to prey on those who flock to these hateful, small-minded extremists on both ends. I'm inclined to not support these businesses just on that basis. Civil discourse is important to me.....why am I supporting companies that are doing their best to discourage it? Answer: I'm not any more.
AFN? Really? Hmm..they got some 'splaining to do! I think it's time to write some letters!
AFN? Really? Hmm..they got some 'splaining to do! I think it's time to write some letters!
I've never understood peoples desire to censor others. If you don't think a company or institution reflects your values, by all means, don't do business with it. But to lobby them to bend to your will, that seems beyone the pale to me.
Oh, you're a liberal* aren't ya? :~)
*Disclaimer: For all who may feel that I'm disparaging liberals, please take a deep breath and consider that I'm only joshing with Peggy.
I think it's fine to write to a company/group and explain why you are not using their products. It might actually change things for that company.
It worked with Korman re: Planned Parenthood.
And, as a company, we get a lot of great information from our clients via regular surveys. And, we respond to it very quickly.
I've written companies before about issues I've had with their products or advertising, noting that I'd be disinclined to patronize them as long as the issue persisted. I've heard back from some, not from others. I think it's absolutely within my rights and responsibilities as a participant in the marketplace to do so.
I've never understood peoples desire to censor others. If you don't think a company or institution reflects your values, by all means, don't do business with it. But to lobby them to bend to your will, that seems beyone the pale to me.
Oh, you're a liberal* aren't ya? :~)
*Disclaimer: For all who may feel that I'm disparaging liberals, please take a deep breath and consider that I'm only joshing with Peggy.
Hmm...let's see...a group of people trying to censor others. Trying to bend them to their will....trying to FORCE their beliefs onto others. A group trying to deny a product to others because THEY don't like it... Now where have I seen this before...where oh where? >8)
Gee, since when is writing a few letters to AFN voicing my displeasure that they, who represent our armed forces, many of whom are women, should support this garbage, censoring? Trust me Alan, a guy who is on the radio 3 hours a day, spewing his filth, followed by how many hundreds of thousands of ditto head sheeple isn't being censored. I don't think you understand the meaning of censor.
Oh, but wait. You're a conservative. That explains it! :doh:
Hmm...let's see...a group of people trying to censor others. Trying to bend them to their will....trying to FORCE their beliefs onto others. A group trying to deny a product to others because THEY don't like it... Now where have I seen this before...where oh where? >8)
I'm not sure. What product is being denied and who is denying it?
... sheeple ...
Dehumanization of those with whom you disagree is an important first step...
http://adiek84.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/reichspogromnacht_21575234originallarge-4-3-800-0-0-3485-2609.jpg?w=658
http://globalvoicesonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Rwanda-genocide-anniversary.jpg
http://ia700805.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/0/items/olcovers422/olcovers422-L.zip&file=4226035-L.jpg
that's a really big slippery slope.
well, i would say that there are numerous people who feel that certain women's health care decisions shouldn't be legal or available. and then from there, other women's health care decisions should be paid for out-of-pocket because they don't want their insurance policies to cover such things -- even though they want other things covered which are similar in nature (vasectomy, for example).
and those people tend to put themselves into a particular political party/category/ideology.
what is ironic is that i am conservative in a lot of ways, but when it comes to these social issues, I tend to be liberal.
it confuses people.
Dehumanization of those with whom you disagree is an important first step...
http://adiek84.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/reichspogromnacht_21575234originallarge-4-3-800-0-0-3485-2609.jpg?w=658
http://globalvoicesonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Rwanda-genocide-anniversary.jpg
http://ia700805.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/0/items/olcovers422/olcovers422-L.zip&file=4226035-L.jpg
Oh please....are you really comparing the idiots who follow and admire Rush Limbaugh with the idiots who followed and admired Hitler? Sure Limbaugh dehumanizes women, all liberals, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, but do you really think all his ditto heads would follow his nasty hatefulness into something like this? Well, maybe you know them better than I do.
flowerseverywhere
3-4-12, 12:16pm
Peggy, in my lifetime I never thought I would see anything happen like Guantanamo bay (most were released without charges), Abu Ghraib, the Post Katrina Fiasco (see Zeitoun) for example.
Over 1,000,000 people follow Rush on Facebook- who are these people? His show is on hundreds of radio stations every day. I have listened to some of his shows and he is downright mean. If you listen to someones rantings enough you can start to be brainwashed.
Hate can spread so quickly- to this day I struggle to understand how human beings carried out the concentration camps and gas chambers. Every day on the news you see pictures of starving men, women and children while dictators live in opulent luxury. Women in many countries have few rights while their husbands can treat them however they want to. There is no end to the cruelty of human beings against other human beings.
No, Peggy. I was referring to people who throw around terms like "sheeple" to dehumanize others. I see a post in this very thread along those lines, which is why I quoted that particular post...
Oh please....are you really comparing the idiots who follow and admire Rush Limbaugh with the idiots who followed and admired Hitler? Sure Limbaugh dehumanizes women, all liberals, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with him, but do you really think all his ditto heads would follow his nasty hatefulness into something like this? Well, maybe you know them better than I do.
Well...I think bae was referring to people referring to others as sheeple....I've been guilty of it at times too. But, like flowerseverywhere, I too see some extremely strong parallels between people who follow a hateful, charismatic "leader" like Rush (or any similar figure on the left, to be fair) who promises them a better/safer/prouder/more prosperous life if they'll just see the world in his black and white terms. They're bad. We're good. Therefore, anything we do or say to "them" is just fine.
And there's not a thing wrong with voting with your dollars. Indeed, I think it's just about the only kind of effective voting left to us.
Well...I think bae was referring to people referring to others as sheeple....
No, I was quoting Peggy. I don't think of my fellow humans as sheep.
No, I was quoting Peggy. I don't think of my fellow humans as sheep.
I know. And I can't believe that peggy didn't know she was the object of your pictorial comment. But whatever.
ApatheticNoMore
3-4-12, 2:55pm
I think the fascism threat is extremely real right now, as serious as can be.
Although fundementally I don't see it coming from the people right now (on any side of the political spectrum!), I see it coming from the horrendous police state laws coming out of Washtington every darn day now just about (and sometimes in more local policies also and ocassionally in worldwide policies). The politicians are criminals. But the thing is these laws are not because people are demanding them. These laws are happening without much in the way of organic bottom up demand. It's not like there are mass movements even propagandized mass movements, instead they seem to be counting on mass apathy (which might very well be propagandized and psych-oped!). Why people are not out in the streets I do not know.
So spewing hate out into the world - frankly does not seem to be the cause of anything ACTUALLY going on politically RIGHT NOW - but it will keep people fighting each other over having sex rather than noticing what is really going on - and it could be used once we have a full on police state (which again it is not the *cause* of) to target certain people. Etc., etc.
What am I reading now: more Hannah Arendt :). I told you I thought the threat was real. She distinguishes dictatorship from totalitarianim. In a dictatorship political protestors are targeted (the treatment of OWS, gave you just a taste of what they likely have in mind), notice the laws putting further restrictions on protest, oh they are only a tiny bit at a time but ... But in totalitarianism (Nazism, Stalinism) whole groups of entirely non-political people are targeted. Perhaps that how hatred can be used to ramp up an already in place police state, to committing not just human rights abuses but horrors on an unspeakable magnitude.
Of course i knew what bae was trying to imply. I'm not an idiot, like anyone who follows and admires Rush Limbaugh. I was just trying to turn it around to show him the absurdity of implying I, an anonymous poster on a thread, is somehow one step from inciting Hitler type genocide, while Rush, a person with millions of devoted fans, who DOES dehumanize on a daily basis to all those millions of devotees, gets a pass. The comparison is absurd, but then, someone who follows this piece of garbage(rush) is used to ridiculous rhetoric. Dehumanizing, in fact. And bae seems to be quite adept at this kind of inflammatory heightened rhetoric, while professing such noble opinion of his fellow man.
Not buying it. Anyone who is so fearful he feels the need to carry a loaded gun wherever he goes doesn't really have much opinion of, or faith in his fellow man.
Of course i knew what bae was trying to imply... .
oh, ok.
Peggy, please stop projecting your own thoughts onto me.
ApatheticNoMore
3-4-12, 8:55pm
Ok ..... so we really have no idea why a picture of some Nazis and a bunch of skulls was posted.
Suspicions are it was either:
1) because some cool new WWII photos were recently unearthed
2) a reference to a recent photo of the Marines in front of a replica of the SS runes (whoo, I'm proud to be an American ... where at least I know my military poses in front of SS flags ...)
3) A call to boycott Volkswagon for their complicty with the Nazis 60+ years after the fact.
But it was really quite hilarious in some weird inside sense of humor way that you can only get when you learn the secret inside Republican handshake, it is called: secret sense of humor (SSOH), it may have links to the Masons. I mean I actually do think true Nazi jokes are genuinely funny if in incredible bad taste ... but this joke was um kind of lost on me.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
-Peggy posted a comment referring to Rush's fans as "sheeple".
- I observed with two pictures and a reference to a quite good academic text on the subject, that dehumanizing others is a bad thing, and has bad consequences. Some posters on this forum have a consistent habit of doing this.
- Peggy then attempted to deflect. And continued with the dehumanizing, divisive rhetoric.
- Which then apparently sucked some folks in.
Settings adjusted accordingly.
Soo, to sum it up, i called some ditto heads sheeple, and bae played the Nazi card.
Certain posters on this board just LOVE to play the Nazi card. On a regular basis!
Back to the point(s)... Puglogic posited that certain corporations enable anti-social behavior on the part of the media, because they believe it helps their bottom line. Peggy averred that she would indicate to such a company that, at least in her case, they have miscalculated. Alan accused her of censoring the media. THAT is where we have the screwy logic in this thread, and where we have the question that pertains to the forum title: in a democratic nation where social discourse is largely enabled/funded by corporations, how does one effectively demand for more civic-minded avenues of debate?
To Bae's hyperbolic and not-altogether effective tactic toward Peggy's referring to (perhaps Bae) as sheeple, I sympathize with him and quote Ernesto Cortes, Jr. "Without the capacity to engage, question, argue, interpret, and contextualize experiences and encounters, authority is left unchallenged and individuals are left open... to the demagogues of hate... to understand other perspectives and points of view while maintaining the ability to debate and argue their own... (is requisite) to sustain democracy in the face of growing isolationism, cynicism, and polarization..."*
The main point being that name-calling and whatever more egregious sociopathology Rush Limbaugh has lately demonstrated is not only bad for democracy, it should be bad for the corporations who choose to insert themselves into public discourse in this way. In a democracy that has been rendered largely impotent by money, the most effective option is to vote with your dollars, baby! Of course for those of us who have already largely divested any economic interaction with these types of corporations, is silence viewed as complicity, or have we already voted? Thus, the dilemma of the modern simple-liver! :devil:
*(From Ernesto Cortes, Jr. "Quality Education as a Civil Right: Reflections")
Well said rozie. (I wasn't calling bae sheeple, I was calling ditto heads sheeple)
From an unattributed news report(AP?)
"On ABC’s 'This Week,' George Will blasted Republicans’ reaction to Limbaugh. '[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,' Will told George Stephanopoulos. 'And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.'
I often (usually, probably) disagree with Will, but I respect him for his generally thoughtful, civil approach.
I am proud of some Republicans for having the courage to stand up to this man. John McCain being the latest. imho, it's clear that anyone who condones this kind of vicious public behavior is completely devoid of compassion for anyone outside their own "tribe", or is severely mentally challenged, or is an abject coward, or is so incredibly in love with their own political viewpoints that they would willingly throw ANY of us under the bus to prove themselves right.
The nauseating part of dealing with such people is often that they'll flail out and justify their behavior by accusing others of being the same empty, self-centered shell that they are -- witness Limbaugh's statement that he "descended to the level of the Left" with his slut comments...what a lovely apology indeed. The old "Hey! They're wayyyy worse than I am!" defense. I know a lot of 7-year-olds who still use it, but with them it's still cute.
And yes, I would say the same if a similar figure on the left behaved in this way. It's reprehensible no matter which end of the stick it comes from.
Ten posts before Goodwin's Law kicks in. Quicker than usual.
ApatheticNoMore
3-5-12, 3:17pm
Ten posts before Goodwin's Law kicks in. Quicker than usual.
+1 yea I thought that too, honestly wondered why I bothered to make serious replies on what I view as a growing police state and carefully distinguish not just dictatorship and totalitarianism (just food for thought - Hannah Arendt - I didn't say you have to buy the distinction), but also Nazism from fascism (fascism is a corporatist dictatorship, dictatorship of the right - it's Nazism when people are being rounded up and murdered in mass - and Nazism really is an extreme level of evil that I hope is never ever reached), when all everyone wants is just to go around calling each other Nazis. I've bristled a little at the term sheeple, since I think it's a media fed reflection on other people, but some times absolutely disgusted with politics, I think that most people must be sheeple too, and I don't consider it being a Nazi to think so.
Basically Rush Limbaugh is feeding various pathologies in the culture, but on another level it's just words. Sticks and stones will break my bones ... Words could eventually lead to full blown pathology expressed in laws? Well yea, they could, but actual evil is going on politically right now anyway.
The second picture was from Rwanda of course, I was trying to have a bit of variety in the dangers of dehumanization.
It's all just words. Until people decide to hack apart their neighbors with machetes, or kill little old ladies in the streets with sniper rifles. Then, "words matter".
From this:
http://efm.ba/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Sarajevo-Olimpijada.jpg
To this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Sarajevo_19.3.1996_war.JPG/800px-Sarajevo_19.3.1996_war.JPG
Only took a few years...
Yes, nice little unnecessary history lesson. We do , in fact get it, which is why people are up in arms about Rush Limbaugh and his daily, systematic dehumanizing of women, liberals, black, whoever he thinks doesn't subscribe to his world view. On the public airwaves, to millions (if you believe him) of loyal listeners. And, because of their blind ideologically driven hatred, they go along, explaining and making excuses for him no matter WHAT he says, even if in a saner moment they would find that horrifying. And this goes for anyone, or groups of people, who 'go along' despite that what is being said is completely irrational and ridiculous with even two seconds of thought. And, this is important, the republican leadership in Washington, the guys some of you elected to lead us in these difficult times, is afraid of him! They are terrified of this man and his power, and his army of ditto heads (sheeple) He is the leader of the republican party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple
Now, how would you characterize anyone who defends Rush and the nasty things he says? Even as they sit across the table from their own wives and sisters and daughters? Does their daughter take the pill? Does their wife take the pill? Are they sluts? I'm pretty sure if you said that to them about their own daughter you would be picking yourself up off the floor. And yet, they laugh and cheer and see nothing wrong with Rush saying that about someone else's daughter.
For fun, let's look at another example of sheeple in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A
And anyone who swallows hook line and sinker the verbal diarrhea that comes out of Fox news every day is part of that sheeple herd.
See, it wasn't someone pointing out the sheeple that caused the genocide in your pictures. It was, in fact, the sheeple who allowed it to happen.
No, I was quoting Peggy. I don't think of my fellow humans as sheep.
Sheep think in hive mind.
I wouldn't consider the history lesson "unnecessary". In the context of pure information possibly, but I think we all need to be reminded of what can happen when we begin to look at our fellow human beings as something less than, well, human. We all know there are too many examples of genocide by our highly evolved species simply because the victims were different. I only play the Goodwin's card because a mention of the Nazis, as often as not, takes the conversation in an entirely predictable direction where references to Sarajevo, Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia, etc. do not. Overall it is probably more tragic that those examples don't invoke as strong a response as the Nazis do. They should.
I prefer to think of "sheeple" as the segment of human society that's most susceptible to hive mind. I certainly don't think of people as sheep, but a certain segment of society appears to behave in a sheeplike way, following "leaders" that work hard to instill deeply antisocial behaviors. This is a perfect example, in fact. Here we have a man with a zillion followers spouting hateful, divisive blather against their fellow man.....even some women, in this situation, are getting little flecks of rabid spittle at the corners of their mouths defending his vicious statements --- against a woman who is probably very much like them on many levels.
Maybe another hundred years of evolution will breed out that population. Or perhaps by then we can give them their own country, where they can walk around in a tourettes-like stupor, snarling "Slut! prostitute! Feminazi! Idiot! Whore!" at each other.
In the meantime, I'll continue my own personal efforts to redirect my dollars away from any commercial businesses that support that kind of behavior. This is how I vote.
ApatheticNoMore
3-6-12, 11:56am
I prefer to think of "sheeple" as the segment of human society that's most susceptible to hive mind. I certainly don't think of people as sheep, but a certain segment of society appears to behave in a sheeplike way, following "leaders" that work hard to instill deeply antisocial behaviors. This is a perfect example, in fact.
Actually I never understand why issues like Rush blow up to being as big as they do. I actually tend to dismiss that ITSELF as propaganda. Like ok this is what hysteria is being manufactured for this week. Liberal blogosphere hysteria of the week I guess (in time for super tuesday - Romney for the win?). I never understand what issues catch on and what don't, half the time it seems mostly to be about the media and what it chooses to cover. P.S. I have said nothing nice about Rush in this whole discussion. I just don't understand what gets lots of attention and what gets ignored (unless it's self evident like 9-11 getting attention - but otherwise it's entirely mysterious to me, it seems media driven). But maybe if I lived somewhere super socially conservative I might think "war against women" everytime something like this came up, I don't know, southern California just isn't that place.
I think this one "blew up" because it was such a vicious smear attack against a mostly regular person expressing their opinion, rather than against a politician or another media figure like himself. Also because it takes guts to get up in front of a congressional committee in the national media, and to be the object of sickening comments like Rush's for having summoned up that courage....well, a lot of people respond to that in a very negative way.
Maybe in Southern California that's all so passe, but in the rest of the country where opinions are more mixed, it evoked a pretty strong gut reaction. Belittle it as the "liberal blogosphere hysteria of the week" if you like, but if it were you, or someone you love, being bullied as a whore across thousands of newspapers, radio stations, television, the internet....I think you might be singing a slightly different tune. Luckily, there are a lot of people across the political spectrum who see this as reprehensible behavior and are willing to speak up about it. Even our local tea party group was up in arms about it...that was pretty amazing to see.
ApatheticNoMore
3-6-12, 12:57pm
Maybe in Southern California that's all so passe ("hey, we call each other whores all the time! what's the big deal?") but in the rest of the country
Looming war in Iran doesn't get this media coverage. Sanctions against Iran that will kill women and children (yes real deaths) don't get this media coverage. Obamas justification of extrajudicial assisination doesn't get this coverage. At a deep level I really really really don't think I understand this country, half the time I suspect it is insane.
Oh and badmouthing CA, those are fighting words
Actually I never understand why issues like Rush blow up to being as big as they do. I actually tend to dismiss that ITSELF as propaganda. Like ok this is what hysteria is being manufactured for this week. Liberal blogosphere hysteria of the week I guess (in time for super tuesday - Romney for the win?). I never understand what issues catch on and what don't, half the time it seems mostly to be about the media and what it chooses to cover. P.S. I have said nothing nice about Rush in this whole discussion. I just don't understand what gets lots of attention and what gets ignored (unless it's self evident like 9-11 getting attention - but otherwise it's entirely mysterious to me, it seems media driven). But maybe if I lived somewhere super socially conservative I might think "war against women" everytime something like this came up, I don't know, southern California just isn't that place.
It wouldn't mean anything if he were, in fact, just another 'entertainer'. But he is the leader/spokesperson for the conservative party, and the young woman he slandered, publicly to millions of listeners, was a nice college girl who had the courage to testify before congress. Frankly I see this as intimidation of a witness, as well as slander.
If you don't get it, then you don't get it. Your derisive characterization of the issue as 'Liberal blogosphere hysteria' shows that you HAVE in fact been listening to SOMEONE.
Looming war in Iran doesn't get this media coverage. Sanctions against Iran that will kill women and children (yes real deaths) don't get this media coverage. Obamas justification of extrajudicial assisination doesn't get this coverage. At a deep level I really really really don't think I understand this country, half the time I suspect it is insane.
Oh and badmouthing CA, those are fighting words
In fact, sanctions in Iran do get that kind of press in my circles, and will until someone suggests a better way than economic sanctions to express global displeasure over developing a nuclear arsenal. So do Obama's actions, which I'm equally displeased over. And I'm simply parroting your own words about it being no big deal in California. I'm unsure how slandering another human being in such a vicious and public way can possibly be okay ANYWHERE in the country, but evidently, where you live, it's not anything I should get ruffled over. California's a lovely place, I spent two decades of my life there, and I personally think you've mischaracterized it to fit your own belief system.
We all pick our battles. You take on the fascist government, I'll take the bloated misogynist draft-dodger using his position of influence to traumatize ordinary citizens who are trying to participate in our democracy. Deal?
......We all pick our battles. You take on the fascist government, I'll take the bloated misogynist draft-dodger using his position of influence to traumatize ordinary citizens who are trying to participate in our democracy. Deal?
Draft dodger? Someone whose draft number was high enough to not be called is a draft dodger? I guess that makes me one too, although I did volunteer and serve, I avoided the draft through the happenstance of a friendly birthdate.
Ordinary citizen? An activist chosen by the minority leader of the house to speak before cameras at a press conference disguised as a committee meeting is just an ordinary citizen?
I think the most interesting aspect of this generated controversy is the way it is being presented to the public. Granted, Limbaugh made an ass of himself, as media types often do, but is it any different from hundreds of other examples that are conveniently ignored?
loosechickens
3-6-12, 6:48pm
The main point, to me, is that this young woman comported herself with dignity, gave reasoned, civil testimony as to why she held the view that this coverage should be required, and then was absolutely SMEARED with filth, accused of being a prostitute and a slut, portrayed as promiscuous and invited to pay for her birth control by making pornorgraphic videos and posting them on the internet. When her testimony had nothing to do with her own sex life at all, but much more illustrated the many ways that lack of such coverage made difficulties for women, especially those with medical issues that might require the birth control for purposes even other than conception.And also had nothing to do with the "government" paying for birth control, both things Rush Limbaugh pretended had been the situation, depending on his low information listeners to believe him, facts be d*mned.
THAT is why a majority of people in this country are aghast. And have finally said ENOUGH of this kind of ugliness spewing out over our commonly owned airwaves. Republicans, Democrats, independents, and most anyone without a conservative axe to grind and a desire to minimize disgusting behavior.
Have you no daughters, Alan? No sisters? A wife? Friends who are women? What earthly DIFFERENCE does it make that this young woman works on reproductive issues? She stood up, stated her views in a cogent and civil manner and then was dragged through filthy, disgusting sh*t for her trouble.
It's one thing if Rush Limbaugh castigates Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi, or any other woman in public life. But pretty much most of the women in the United States know where they stand on this particular slimefest, and it means big trouble for conservatives, who have been quite happy having Rush Limbaugh be a loud, boorish spokesperson for their side for quite a long time, and allowed him such power over them that they feared to cross him.
The women of America are NOT afraid of crossing Rush Limbaugh. And the whole rest of them who would deny women health coverage for their reproductive lives. Watch the numbers of women voters who are changing their minds about Republicans now. Republicans are definitely on the wrong side of this one. IMHO
Thanks for chiming in Loosechickens, I think you've summed up my problems with this entire issue quite nicely. First of all, the young lady did not provide testimony. It was not a committee hearing and she was not sworn in. It was a publicity stunt and she was hand picked by Nancy Pelosi to play a part in it, that's why I questioned the premise that she was simply an "ordinary citizen".
The publicity stunt was designed to change the focus of the issue at hand, to frame this administrations mandate that religious institutions must either violate their beliefs or that private companies must provide very specific free services to a favored demographic. And it's worked!
They couldn't have planned it any better considering the ass that Limbaugh made of himself, and no one is talking about the governmental over-reach which sparked the entire thing. When you want to take the focus off of the real problems we face as a country, this is what you do (the rhetorical you of course).
Many years ago, a young, close relative of mine appeared on a televised current affairs program, testifying to the importance of making birth control services available to teenagers. There were no repercussions to any of us, and she went on to work in journalism while finishing her education. In today's climate, I suspect she would face a barrage of vituperation from those who want us all to just sit down and shut up.
Ms. Fluke is a private citizen who has every right to express her concerns before a government panel without fearing that some so-called media professional would label her a whore and cast her in his creepy voyeuristic fantasies for merely contributing to the public discourse.
I think it would be fun to start a website called 98PercentSluts.com and really post intimate videos as a protest.
Good grief, me and hubby might shut down the web if anyone caught a peek of us in our current condition of needing an extra lap around the track. They'd pay us to take our video down!
The reason it's such a big deal is Rush sounded like a deranged perverted loon and people are sick of the power he wields (I bet even some Repubs).
If I were a Repub I think this would be a great opportunity to take a stand against Rush.
If I were a Conservative Talk Show wanna-be, I think this would be a great time to go for some of his audience.
Every day I google 'Chris Christie on Rush Limbaugh' hoping for some good Jersey straight talk.
To liken Peggy to Hitler for using the term 'sheeple' when Mr. Limbaugh almost bursts an artery on his spewage daily to 20 million listeners is beyond the pot calling the kettle black to me.
loosechickens
3-6-12, 7:20pm
You keep right on with that argument, Alan.....it's the one that Republicans and conservatives are going to have hung around their neck when they lose this fall in a landslide. Because they just DON'T get it.
Where were all these "religious freedom" issues for the past dozen years when 28 states have required these same religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverages in their medical plans? Eight of those states don't even make any exception for the actual churches themselves and their employees, so that the secretary in the church office or the rectory housekeeper have to be provided that coverage.
The right THOUGHT they had something they could use this election year to bludgeon Obama on the health care reform, so all of a sudden this became a "religious freedom" issue, although those same organizations have been paying for contraceptive coverage in more than half our states for years.
But, they guessed wrong. Because American women understand when they are being used politically. And this ploy by the right has backfired and blown up in their faces in a way that couldn't even have been DREAMED of by Democrats.....a true gift from the gods of karma......
So....keep on making that argument....I'm hearing that same argument on Fox News and the Daily Caller, and in lots and lots of truly awful comments below articles and opinion pieces on rightwing sites.
It's an especially funny argument when it hinges on both "the Dems and liberals are stupid, unAmerican and destroying the country and our religious freedoms" and "those Dems and liberals are so intelligent that they managed to tie the right into absolute KNOTS with no difficulty and has them digging themselves deeper and deeper and deeper with every news cycle. I had no idea those Dems were such excellent chess players.....
The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.....the right is just throwing in more old white guys who don't have a clue, into that hole with more shovels. Have at it. It's great......if you want to see Democrats win and President Obama to have a second term. Keep up the good work.
Because, in the end, most EVERYONE has daughters, sisters, wives, girlfriends, grandmothers and friends who are women. And most of those people are going to watch this hole being busily dug deeper and deeper and wider and wider, and are going to move in the other direction, right away from the far right fringe that has become the mainstream of the Republican party over the years. JMHO, of course. YMMV and I'm sure it does.
....The right THOUGHT they had something they could use this election year to bludgeon Obama on the health care reform, so all of a sudden this became a "religious freedom" issue, although those same organizations have been paying for contraceptive coverage in more than half our states for years.
But, they guessed wrong. Because American women understand when they are being used politically. And this ploy by the right has backfired and blown up in their faces in a way that couldn't even have been DREAMED of by Democrats.....a true gift from the gods of karma......
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one because the issue really is government over-reach into religion. And that's a loser for this administration so the argument must be changed.
I do agree that American women are being used politically, and in many cases voluntarily, but I suspect in the end it'll still be a loser for the Democrats.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one because the issue really is government over-reach into religion. And that's a loser for this administration so the argument must be changed.
I do agree that American women are being used politically, and in many cases voluntarily, but I suspect in the end it'll still be a loser for the Democrats.
Doesn't the work around where the Insurance Co., not the religious institution, has to provide the contraception if the insured needs it solve the religious conflicts?
Doesn't the work around where the Insurance Co., not the religious institution, has to provide the contraception if the insured needs it solve the religious conflicts?
I don't think so. The onus is still on the religious institution to provide the coverage, and it creates an entirely new problem of forcing a private business to provide something for free.
Where does that end?
loosechickens
3-6-12, 7:47pm
And, where, exactly, Alan, were all those religious organizations in the 28 states which have had these laws on their books for years, some without even exempting the churches themselves, which the Federal requirement does? Why weren't they all up in arms about government "encroachment" on their religious freedom for the past dozen years in more than half this country?
Nice try, no cigar. The Republicans tried by putting up a few very visible black people to attract African-Americans, but black folks looked around at the practically totally white Republican legislators in states and Congress, and said "window dressing". They tried to attract Latinos by lots of talk about Marco Rubio (without the slightest understanding of how the "Latino" vote is fragmented, and Mexican-Americans have about as much togetherness with Cuban-Americans as Sunnis have with Shi'ites), but the Hispanics recognize that, and despite their natural bent toward social conservatism (which is shared by lots of African-Americans), they know the Republican party is no friend to them.
And now, women are getting that same "eureka" moment, of understanding just exactly what and how much misogyny lurks on the right, and the numbers show a big change, especially in moderate, independent women (those proverbial soccer-moms), whose numbers approving of Republicans are tanking, tanking, tanking.
As I said, keep trying to frame how much this is supposedly about "religious freedom", the same way the Republicans have tried to frame their "big tent", but the groups you are trying for are not dumb, and they know what they see.
I have been AMAZED at Republican women I know who absolutely have their knickers in a twist about this whole issue. They aren't the very far right, very fundamentalist group of Republicans, but have been reliable Republican voters for years, and are now being willing to give President Obama another very hard look. They understand he has daughters and wants the best possible world for them. But not so sure about folks like Romney, with five sons, who couldn't come up with any more than "wouldn't be the words I would have chosen" in comment about Rush Limbaugh's attacks.
The Republican Presidential contenders had an excellent chance to stand up for decency, stand up for women, and speak out about the treatment accorded women who DARE to speak, if the right doesn't agree with them. And they FAILED that test. Miserably. And will pay for it. IMHO
As you said, this is just one we shall have to agree to disagree upon. But I hope that no woman in your family is ever subjected to this kind of treatment. Honestly.
edited to add this example: I received this link just now from a woman friend who has voted Republican her whole life. Probably what would be called a "moderate Republican", but not a person who voted Democratic at all. And I've never known her to say a thing, either for or against Planned Parenthood. How do you think SHE is going to vote this year? When she is sending this link to all her friends?
http://www.womenarewatching.org/get-involved/take-the-pledge
THIS is what you guys have to fear:
"To the 2012 candidates for office:
I hear what you are saying. I see what you are doing. And I'm watching...
I stand with the 157 million women and girls living in the United States. Women make up more than half of the nation's population, and we — women and men who care about women's health — are watching because our health and our lives are on the line. It doesn't matter whether we are rich or poor, old or young, black, white, Latina, or Asian. What matters is that we are watching out for each other, and we are watching political candidates like hawks.
The coming elections will determine the futures of us all — sisters, mothers, grandmothers, daughters, aunts, and friends.
That's why Planned Parenthood Action Fund can count on me. I pledge that I'll be one of millions of women and men across America watching, thinking, acting and voting to protect my health and that of my family, friends and neighbors.
WATCH
I'll watch and listen to what candidates say about women's health care, and share what I see with friends and family.
THINK
I'll read between the lines of campaign propaganda to identify candidates who want to take away lifesaving health care like breast and cancer screenings and access to affordable birth control.
ACT
I'll demand that candidates support access to women's health care. I'll write letters, send e-mails, attend town hall meetings, wave signs... whatever it takes to make sure my voice is seen and counted and heard in this campaign.
VOTE
And when the time comes, I'll VOTE for candidates who will protect all women's health care — including lifesaving and preventive care — and encourage my friends and family, women and men, to get to the polls on Election Day. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racisim, misogyny, stupidity. A well formulated trifecta. :laff:
Just goes to show how easy politics really is in the 21st century.
Alan, just because you are up at the plate here can you give a stab at LooseChicken's question
"And, where, exactly, Alan, were all those religious organizations in the 28 states which have had these laws on their books for years, some without even exempting the churches themselves, which the Federal requirement does? Why weren't they all up in arms about government "encroachment" on their religious freedom for the past dozen years in more than half this country? "
That's a simple one, and obvious to boot. Those state's are not constitutionally forbidden from interfering with religion. Also, insurance is regulated on a state by state basis according to their individual charter's. The federal government has no authority to usurp them unless basic civil rights are violated.
loosechickens
3-6-12, 8:16pm
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Alan. Are you saying that the individual states do not have to follow the U.S. Constitution? That none of these religious institutions tried to take these many state laws over the years to the U.S. Supreme Court as being laws that were against the U.S. Constitution? So that their Constitutional rights of freedom of religion were being infringed upon by the actions of their state?
I've heard a lot of arguments, but I never heard that the individual states were not bound by the U.S. Constitution. Or that organizations who thought their religious freedoms were being trampled wouldn't be going to court to try to do something about it. Wow.......
If so, still not much of an explanation about why we haven't heard a peep out of them for lo these many years, when they were required to provide this coverage and pay for it, in all those states. One would have thought they would have been fighting tooth and nail.....but, nope, it took an election year, and some folks thinking this might be a good way to bludgeon President Obama on "Obamacare".......how interesting.
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Alan. Are you saying that the individual states do not have to follow the U.S. Constitution?
Sort of. The U.S. Constitution is a limiting document, not an empowering one. It places limits on the federal government except in very narrowly defined areas such as natural rights.
In this case, the document itself is quite clear:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
ApatheticNoMore
3-6-12, 9:14pm
So if one is female one has to make Rush the single most important issue on which they base their political opinions and vote. Ok ...... kinda wish I was a man then.
I used to listen to Rush. I still do ocassionally for old times sake. But I really don't think it's as good as was in the last century. They really shouldn't have gotten rid of the keyboards if you ask me.
Yeah!! Tom Sawyer
But not on the Rush show anymore. Rush (the band) sent Limbaugh a cease and desist letter over using their music because of last week's events.
Rush Limbaugh uses Rush's music?
It's interesting to see everyone getting on board with this. Rush (the band) says that their music was playing in the background as Rush (the evil) was making his comments about Ms Fluke, so, their lawyer sent a cease and desist letter. Interestingly, Peter Gabriel is making the same claim.
I didn't know he used background music on his show.
For those of you who DO get it, here is the website of the funding organization that pays for the art of the capital. If you go to the website, there is a form to send an e-mail/review. I'm sure the funding organization would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.
http://nonprofitfacts.com/MO/Speakers-Annual-Golf-Classic.html
For those who missed it, the Missouri Speaker of the house, Steve Tilley, has decided to show his 'displeasure' of Rush's hate speech by building a shrine to him in the capitol! Yep, he's having a bust made of this garbage to put in the capital. It's called the Hall of Famous Missourians and has the likes of harry Truman, Mark Twain, Walt Disney and others. What an embarrassment.
Well, I've written the organization telling them exactly what I think of this.
For those of you who DO get it, here is the website of the funding organization that pays for the art of the capital. If you go to the website, there is a form to send an e-mail/review. I'm sure the funding organization would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.
http://nonprofitfacts.com/MO/Speakers-Annual-Golf-Classic.html
For those who missed it, the Missouri Speaker of the house, Steve Tilley, has decided to show his 'displeasure' of Rush's hate speech by building a shrine to him in the capitol! Yep, he's having a bust made of this garbage to put in the capital. It's called the Hall of Famous Missourians and has the likes of harry Truman, Mark Twain, Walt Disney and others. What an embarrassment.
Well, I've written the organization telling them exactly what I think of this.
Now I'm really pissed, they are having a golf outing and I wasn't invited.
Draft dodger? Someone whose draft number was high enough to not be called is a draft dodger?
yes, a dodger: http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp
And Fluke was asked to speak by Pelosi because she was initially refused an opportunity by Congressman Issa:
"During a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 16, 2012, Chairman Darrell Issa refused to allow third-year Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke to testify about the critical importance of contraceptives to millions of women across the country. Claiming that the hearing would address only issues relating to religious freedom, Chairman Issa stated that Ms. Fluke is “a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue,” that she is not “appropriate or qualified” to testify, and that she does “not have the appropriate credentials” to appear before the Committee."
So if one is female one has to make Rush the single most important issue on which they base their political opinions and vote. Ok ...... kinda wish I was a man then.
I used to listen to Rush. I still do ocassionally for old times sake. But I really don't think it's as good as was in the last century. They really shouldn't have gotten rid of the keyboards if you ask me.
No, if one is female (or male) with some conservative sympathies and history of occasionally voting Repub. and is frustrated because leaders and candidates of the more conservative party won't grow a pair and stand up to a fire-breathing bully that calls women that believe in contraception being covered by their healthcare plan Femi-Nazis --- then yes, that said female (or male) will have a hard time pulling the Repub lever come November.
Is Susan B Anthony a Femi-Nazi in Rush's world view?
What women are not Femi-Nazi's?
Is Lynne Cheney a Femi-Nazi for writing a children's history book about women's history? (A is for Abilgail is one of my DD's favorite books right now.)
I think the man is a turd and needs to be called out just like he is right now.
Edit to Add: As I read over my post I ask myself 'What the heck does it matter to me what Rush thinks about anything?"
But it does matter to me what Republican leaders and candidates think AND SAY of Rush in the light of these latest antics.
Edit to Add Even More: If it was Pelosi's master-mind plan to 'bait' Rush with Fluke. Dam, that's some serious mind-fudge strategy right there Nancy! Atta' girl.
No, if one is female (or male) with some conservative sympathies and history of occasionally voting Repub. and is frustrated because leaders and candidates of the more conservative party won't grow a pair and stand up to a fire-breathing bully that calls women that believe in contraception being covered by their healthcare plan Femi-Nazis --- then yes, that said female (or male) will have a hard time pulling the Repub lever come November.
Is Susan B Anthony a Femi-Nazi in Rush's world view?
What women are not Femi-Nazi's?
Is Lynne Cheney a Femi-Nazi for writing a children's history book about women's history? (A is for Abilgail is one of my DD's favorite books right now.)
I think the man is a turd and needs to be called out just like he is right now.
Edit to Add: As I read over my post I ask myself 'What the heck does it matter to me what Rush thinks about anything?"
But it does matter to me what Republican leaders and candidates think AND SAY of Rush in the light of these latest antics.
Edit to Add Even More: If it was Pelosi's master-mind plan to 'bait' Rush with Fluke. Dam, that's some serious mind-fudge strategy right there Nancy! Atta' girl.
Edit to Add Even More Yet Again:
If right is so upset b/c of Dem's smoke and mirrors to divert from Religious Freedom issues...
I hope they saved some derision for Rush on those same grounds -- it was his comments that have people totally worked up about not having to pay for sluts to have sex.
(And don't forget the sluts are having sex with man ho's -- Rush just failed to mention them in the broadcast.)
I guess he didn't get the RNC Talking Points over those 3 days to keep it on the Religious Freedom train of thought.
yes, a dodger: http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp
Did you read your own link? It asserts that his draft number was 152 and only numbers 1 through 125 were called, and further that he was classified as 1Y due to a pilondial cyst which was then, and continues to this day to be a disqualifying condition. It also reiterates that there is no doubt that the condition existed.
Perhaps one could make the argument that he could have attempted to join the military, despite his disqualification, but failure to do so doesn't constitute "draft dodging" in my book.
Did you read your own link? It asserts that his draft number was 152 and only numbers 1 through 125 were called, and further that he was classified as 1Y due to a pilondial cyst which was then, and continues to this day to be a disqualifying condition. It also reiterates that there is no doubt that the condition existed.
Perhaps one could make the argument that he could have attempted to join the military, despite his disqualification, but failure to do so doesn't constitute "draft dodging" in my book.
I wondered about that snopes based citation. I didn't read the entry, but usually a snopes citation disproves an idea.
Now alan, you are "defending Rush." Maybe that was the idea to begin with? Drag you into it, ha ha.
...Now alan, you are "defending Rush." Maybe that was the idea to begin with? Drag you into it, ha ha.
I'm sure some will see it that way but in reality, I just have this thing for facts and reason. Sometimes it gets me in trouble with the cool kids. :|(
loosechickens
3-7-12, 10:16am
"So if one is female one has to make Rush the single most important issue on which they base their political opinions and vote. Ok ...... kinda wish I was a man then.
I used to listen to Rush. I still do ocassionally for old times sake. But I really don't think it's as good as was in the last century. They really shouldn't have gotten rid of the keyboards if you ask me."(ApatheticNoMore)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By no means, ApatheticNoMore. I don't think that ANYONE should base their votes on on single issue, ignoring all others, and I'm quite accustomed to having people I vote for stand for issues with which I do not agree.
But if one of the parties shows in many ways that time and again, they are going to stand for policies that are against my interests, show a disrespect for me and people like me, I WILL put that into consideration, and depending upon the seriousness of the issues, it WILL affect my voting.
Of course, no one should decide to stop voting Republican because a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh makes disgusting comments demeaning to women about one woman. But if the politicians who share his conservatism don't speak up in defense of women, and if it is coupled with a large laundry list of positions and decisions that either cause harm to many women or attempt to control their reproductive rights, access to health care, etc., I WILL, as a woman, begin to pay attention.
It's the totality. It's the thread of misogyny that, in Virginia, would have had (if there hadn't been an uproar) a woman who was a victim of a vicious rape, and became pregnant, have to have an invasive ultrasound, against her will, including a vaginal probe inserted in her vagina, which meets the definition of rape in most states (penetration against the will with any object) BY the state, before being allowed to terminate that pregnancy. And pushed hard by Republicans in the VA legislature.
It's when the party that is supposed to stand for less government, less interference in our lives by that government, and individual freedom seems to think that abridging WOMEN'S freedom is just fine, and allowing the government into our bedrooms to monitor our sex lives is great, too. It's when one of the leading Republican candidates for President is on record as saying that women really shouldn't be allowed contraceptives because it will lead to "improper sexual behavior", and many, many other things.
No, a person should not decide to vote differently because of a Rush Limbaugh comment. But when that comment, AND the lukewarm statements from prominent candidates running for President, coupled with the many attempts to control women's sexuality and access to contraceptives, rights over their own bodies, etc., and when the discussion begins to be, no longer, about abortion, but about womens' basic rights to contraception, and access to health care, THEN it is appropriate to ask oneself if the Republican Party truly is an hospitable party toward women.
Obviously, if one is a hard core supporter of Republicans, part of the basic Republican base, one will ignore such things and continue to have that ideology trump everything. But if one is a woman, and a part of that great middle of what is termed "soccer moms", and sees women treated in this way, and the totality of ways this disrespect of women and their rights and health is appearing, then yes, I think one WOULD prepare to jump off that ship, and a number of such women are doing so.
Not Rush, per se, but what Rush represents, and a way of thinking that shows a certain ugliness toward women and their issues.....that is the problem, to me.
I do think one point that has been glossed over, but remains valid, is that Ms. Fluke is a political activist and so does qualify as a public figure. Deserved or not, that does tend to put a person out in front and cause criticism that is really directed at the ideology or group they represent to be focused at that individual.
To avoid a hail of bullets I'll say that (IMO) Rush was out of line and Ms. Fluke was not deserving of a personal attack. But she is building a career as an activist and so I'm sure she was aware this kind of treatment was a possibility. Ironically, this one incident has probably done more to advance her career than the several years of good work she did leading up to this point.
loosechickens
3-7-12, 10:47am
I saw this today, and it made me wonder if there aren't some very interesting reasons why a party that has lots of older, white guys who in their youth had a playing field tilted much more in their favor, and are now having to compete with women and minorities, might be interested in preventing access to contraception, etc. An effective way to hobble a dangerous competitor. I never thought of this, but something clicked in my mind when I read this today, so I throw it out into the fray before I get offline for the day, for you guys to chew over.
the NY Times has a blog post about the broader impact of the pill on society.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/the-economic-impact-of-the-pill/?smid=tw-nytimeseconomix&seid=auto
"The recent controversy over contraception and health insurance has focused on who should pay for the pill. But there is a wealth of economic evidence about the value of the pill – to taxpayers, as my colleague Motoko Rich writes, as well as to women in general.
Indeed, as the economist Betsey Stevenson has noted, a number of studies have shown that by allowing women to delay marriage and childbearing, the pill has also helped them invest in their skills and education, join the work force in greater numbers, move into higher-status and better-paying professions and make more money over all.
One of the most influential and frequently cited studies of the impact the pill has had on women’s lives comes from Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz. The two Harvard economists argue that the pill gave women “far greater certainty regarding the pregnancy consequences of sex.” That “lowered the costs of engaging in long-term career investments,” freeing women to finish high school or go to college, for instance, rather than settling down.
The pill also helped make the marriage market “thicker,” they write. By decoupling sex from marriage, young people were able to put off getting married and spend more time shopping around for a prospective partner.
Those changes have had enormous impacts on the economy, studies show: increasing the number of women in the labor force, raising the number of hours that women work and giving women access to traditionally male and highly lucrative professions in fields like law and medicine.
A study by Martha J. Bailey, Brad Hershbein and Amalia R. Miller helps assign a dollar value to those tectonic shifts. For instance, they show that young women who won access to the pill in the 1960s ended up earning an 8 percent premium on their hourly wages by age 50.
Such trends have helped narrow the earnings gap between men and women. Indeed, the paper suggests that the pill accounted for 30 percent – 30 percent! – of the convergence of men’s and women’s earnings from 1990 to 2000.
Interestingly, the study also found that the pill had the greatest economic benefits for women with average IQ scores. “Almost all of the wage gains accrued to women in the middle of the IQ distribution,” the paper said. For this group, it said, women with early access to the pill “enjoyed greater hourly wages throughout their twenties and the premium grew to a statistically significant 20 percent at ages 30 to 49.” Why? The pill helped “middle ability” women in “planning for and opting into paid work,” the researchers theorized."
.
I'm curious what makes anyone think that women will no longer have access to contraception under a Republican administration?
I get the whole thing about women's health care, although pregnancy is not a disease or illness, and I get the idea that many think it should be at no cost to the individuals desiring it, but I don't get the underlying implication that anyone advocates taking it away from them.
Could this just be another effort to re-direct peoples priorities off the real issues of the day?
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-12, 12:06pm
I'm curious what makes anyone think that women will no longer have access to contraception under a Republican administration?
I get the whole thing about women's health care, although pregnancy is not a disease or illness, and I get the idea that many think it should be at no cost to the individuals desiring it, but I don't get the underlying implication that anyone advocates taking it away from them.
pregnancy is a sexually transmitted disease :).
Could this just be another effort to re-direct peoples priorities off the real issues of the day?
basically I think so .... however if you had told me 10 years ago that a law like NDAA would be on the books and that the media would blackout most coverage of it before it passed and it would not be covered by the mainstream media at all pretty much, and that while many people would be against it, there would be hardly any protest, I also would have thought you were a nutty conspiracy theorist. So all birth control being banned ... anything can happen. But I will say this, there seems little real economist interest in birth control being banned. Even the theoretical jealousy of some white guys (and hey men have to pay child support, they don't necessarily like births happening willy nilly either), is not at all what I would consider a real economic interests, because by economic interests I mean large economic entities. I think it's possible and I really don't know for sure (and on some level I don't even care) that NDAA passed because of fear of OWS and real political protest. And I really don't see any real economic interest in banning birth control whatever. So like I said that basically amounts to I don't see it happening.
And so yes I think it is a distraction.
I'm curious what makes anyone think that women will no longer have access to contraception under a Republican administration?
I get the whole thing about women's health care, although pregnancy is not a disease or illness, and I get the idea that many think it should be at no cost to the individuals desiring it, but I don't get the underlying implication that anyone advocates taking it away from them.
Could this just be another effort to re-direct peoples priorities off the real issues of the day?
I missed the no cost thing - how does that work? As far as I know people are still paying for insurance, copays, deductables, etc - and I don't think insurance co's are banned from including these costs in calculating the rates they charge.
ApatheticNoMore
3-7-12, 12:29pm
I missed the no cost thing - how does that work? As far as I know people are still paying for insurance, copays, etc - and I don't think insurance co's are banned from including these costs in calculating the rates they charge.
You would think that would precisely the economic conservative argument against this and it is sound. Rates will probably increase when any coverage of anything is added. And to put things like birth control that are pretty affordable OUT OF POCKET into a 3rd party payer system, well that is just a guarantee that society as a whole will end up paying FAR MORE for birth control than they ever would have on the open market even if no more birth control at all is used. Because it's being filtered through the 3rd party cluster@#$@ (really insurance is such an utter disaster and you want more things to be done through *THAT* system? That's nuts). See while it is clear as day that hospitilization and long illness and so on at present are entirely unaffordable out of pocket, for birth control it's just not so. Now that's how you make a conservative argument that's solid, but instead you get anti-sex screeds! Unbelievable really.
I missed the no cost thing - how does that work? As far as I know people are still paying for insurance, copays, deductables, etc - and I don't think insurance co's are banned from including these costs in calculating the rates they charge.
Except that we're now told that it's not a violation of religious institutions core principles if they are not forced to pay for the coverage and that contraceptives must be provided without copay or any other out-of-pocket expenses to the insured. Ergo, they're free.
I saw this today, and it made me wonder if there aren't some very interesting reasons why a party that has lots of older, white guys who in their youth had a playing field tilted much more in their favor, and are now having to compete with women and minorities, might be interested in preventing access to contraception, etc. An effective way to hobble a dangerous competitor.
It's an interesting notion LC, but based on a premise that we don't really see in real life. A higher birth rate among minorities, by virtue of being denied birth control, would eventually have to equate to more job candidates from those groups. The theory would work for a generation, but after that sheer numbers would start to take over. That should be especially true when you consider the population increase in minorities, such as Hispanics, that have higher birth rates AND immigration working together. It just wouldn't take very long for the wave to drown the conspirators.
Except that we're now told that it's not a violation of religious institutions core principles if they are not forced to pay for the coverage and that contraceptives must be provided without copay or any other out-of-pocket expenses to the insured. Ergo, they're free.
if your insurance is free, yes.
I did miss the "Preventive Services Covered" part - it's a pretty extensive list of stuff.
I understand that 20+ of his sponsors have dropped him. (Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.)
A higher birth rate among minorities, by virtue of being denied birth control, would eventually have to equate to more job candidates from those groups. The theory would work for a generation, but after that sheer numbers would start to take over. That should be especially true when you consider the population increase in minorities, such as Hispanics, that have higher birth rates AND immigration working together. It just wouldn't take very long for the wave to drown the conspirators.
And would also create a greater voter block of those same folks - many with liberal leanings who would not side with the GOP. I've seen this in my former town of Little Saigon - a small community of refugees/immigrants who arrived mid-1970s and who choose (voluntarily not due to lack of available birth control) to have a large number of children. Creating not only a huge number of new jobs for the refugees/immigrants, but entirerely shifting the political orientation of the city (and eventually the county and even the state) from "old white conservative GOP guys" to "young asian liberal Dem families" - and lots of them.
As a side bar - the reason most insurance companies don't cover contraceptives is that it isn't considered a "health care issue" the way that other medical drugs are - to cure or prevent a disease. Insurance companies consider preventing pregnancies as a social issue rather than a medical issue (and not a reproductive "medical" issue) and therefore something that they need not cover.
As a side bar - the reason most insurance companies don't cover contraceptives is that it isn't considered a "health care issue" the way that other medical drugs are - to cure or prevent a disease. Insurance companies consider preventing pregnancies as a social issue rather than a medical issue (and not a reproductive "medical" issue) and therefore something that they need not cover.
It depends on the procedure - most cover vasectomies (and many cover reversals as well) and tubal ligations.
As a side bar - the reason most insurance companies don't cover contraceptives is that it isn't considered a "health care issue" the way that other medical drugs are - to cure or prevent a disease. Insurance companies consider preventing pregnancies as a social issue rather than a medical issue (and not a reproductive "medical" issue) and therefore something that they need not cover.
I would be curious to know if the insurance company actuaries have done studies to figure out if providing contraception with no co-pay results in enough reduction in unexpected/unwanted pregnancy and the huge expense that comes with that to make it more economical to the insurance company to provide the contraception at no out of pocket cost to anyone that wants it. If that were the case I would assume that most insurance companies would happily pay for it since ultimately it's only the bottom line that matters to them.
An aside to your aside - in NY state pregnancy/birth of a baby is essentially considered a disability. The state mandates that all employers provide statutory disabililty insurance for all employees who are covered by workers comp. This is six months of coverage (at an admittedly low maximum weekly payout of $170/week) that covers people who become unable to work due to non-work related injury or illness. Enough case law has pretty much settled that birthing a baby qualifies a woman to collect disability even if the pregnancy was not complicated. As a result the premiums for women are nearly double those for men.
loosechickens
3-9-12, 12:53am
"I would be curious to know if the insurance company actuaries have done studies to figure out if providing contraception with no co-pay results in enough reduction in unexpected/unwanted pregnancy and the huge expense that comes with that to make it more economical to the insurance company to provide the contraception at no out of pocket cost to anyone that wants it. If that were the case I would assume that most insurance companies would happily pay for it since ultimately it's only the bottom line that matters to them." (jp1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly why the Obama administration was able to come up with the compromise with the Catholic Church, etc., by having the insurance companies supply this coverage themselves at no cost to the policy holder or extra premiums to the church. The insurance companies were willing to sign on to that compromise because it would actually SAVE them money. Companies can pay for contraception for a lot of women for the cost of paying for one pregnancy and delivery, not to mention that child being added to the family's policy.
This compromise satisfied the objections of the church among the Catholics, etc., who were honestly concerned about being a party to paying for contraceptives which they consider wrong to use (although 99% of the women even in their own church use them), but of course, the ones who were using it as a political bludgeon were not mollified and continued on.
But the insurance companies were happy to be thrown into this particular briar patch, because their bottom lines, instead of suffering, will actually be enhanced. The Church won't have to pay, women will have the coverage.....everyone happy except those with primarily a political axe to grind.
flowerseverywhere
3-9-12, 7:47am
This compromise satisfied the objections of the church among the Catholics, etc., who were honestly concerned about being a party to paying for contraceptives which they consider wrong to use (although 99% of the women even in their own church use them), but of course, the ones who were using it as a political bludgeon were not mollified and continued on.
But the insurance companies were happy to be thrown into this particular briar patch, because their bottom lines, instead of suffering, will actually be enhanced. The Church won't have to pay, women will have the coverage.....everyone happy except those with primarily a political axe to grind.
and the Catholic Church is an institution run by men. All my Catholic friends use birth control and then get vasectomies or tubal ligations which goes against church teaching. It is quite a curious thing.
I would be curious to know if the insurance company actuaries have done studies to figure out if providing contraception with no co-pay results in enough reduction in unexpected/unwanted pregnancy and the huge expense that comes with that to make it more economical to the insurance company to provide the contraception at no out of pocket cost to anyone that wants it. If that were the case I would assume that most insurance companies would happily pay for it since ultimately it's only the bottom line that matters to them.
.
I personally think insurance agencies are crazy not to provide contraceptives as one of their covered benefits, especially, as creaker pointed out, since they cover sterilization for no other reason then to prevent births. But this is one of the arguments they use (it's not a health care issue) when asked why they won't have it as a covered service on their plans. That unwanted birth is gonna cost a heck of alot more in the long run. And while I believe that preventing pregnancy is the responsibility of the man and woman who are sexually involved, even if they have to pay for that protection themselves or choose abstinance, I still have never understood the reasons why it isn't covered by insurance Co. Even the miltary and Veterans hospitals won't cover it (or wouldn't last I heard) because they consider that it would then be tax-payer funded.
I sometimes think our country is schizophrenic. On the one hand, we have issues like this, where contraception is still such a "morals" issue that it begets (no pun intended) situations like the current one.
But in the media, you can see all kinds of immoral behavior, in every other frame it seems -- sexual situations, extreme violence, commercials which glorify lying and cheating, sitcoms which encourage you to criticize your spouse "because it's funny."
It's a pretty strange place sometimes.
And just when I thought it couldn't get any stranger: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ashleymadison-com-ceo-offers-buy-limbaugh-ads-business-183714214.html
I'm taking a history class. Yesterday my assigned reading covered The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such attacks. Emphasis added.
Seems Limbaugh and his peers, regardless of political flavour, have never read this. It's a pity that the phrasing didn't specifically include women; many people don't seem to know that "he" and "his" in the greater context include "she" and "her" - though that may well be a case of wilful ignorance for some!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.