Sandra Fluke Testimony

[sigmapi1501]

Wow, I was almost fooled. I thought Abrupt was possibly a small government republican who loved freedom and had a mind of his own. Nope. Just a guy that reiterates Rush Limbaugh and Fox News rhetoric. You sir, are a hack. Respect lost sir.

[springsgardner]

WOW! It seems that I am way out of touch with this one. I will have to go and watch it. I had heard on the radio about forcing insurance companies to offer women's contraceptives whether they be for a religious-based company or not. I never knew they were considered it for other health problems. I saw someone say that there are other options for those conditions. I'd like to know what they are.

[Falconer02]

I entirely agree about people needing to be more responsible.  I think most of the modern problems in the US are due to lack of responsibility.  That is the single biggest issue facing us in every area of our lives and the economy.

Agreed, though expecting responsibility is a pipe dream nowadays. The best bet is just to work hard as one will always have it better doing that than the others feeding off of welfare all their lives.

If you compare her speech to the subject matter and what it was put in challenge of and how it was presented it becomes almost entirely obvious.  A brilliant tactic, but it would not work on those paying attention.

That health insurance companies shouldn't pay for the health of their buyers because of some religious (places that don't pay taxes) loophole? Or how this will effect the healthcare bill?

There are alternate treatments for these conditions that are not only handled by birth control.

Like what? How much do these treatments cost as opposed to simple birth control?

WOW! It seems that I am way out of touch with this one. I will have to go and watch it. I had heard on the radio about forcing insurance companies to offer women's contraceptives whether they be for a religious-based company or not. I never knew they were considered it for other health problems. I saw someone say that there are other options for those conditions. I'd like to know what they are.

Wow, I was almost fooled. I thought Abrupt was possibly a small government republican who loved freedom and had a mind of his own. Nope. Just a guy that reiterates Rush Limbaugh and Fox News rhetoric. You sir, are a hack. Respect lost sir.

Abrupt IS a small gov't republican who obviously loves freedom. But imo he pulled the trigger a little too quickly on this one.

I think everyone should listen to Jon Stewart's rebuttle on the Rush Limbaugh pig filth even if one does not like Jon Stewart. It's quite epic and he sets the record straight. If one does not want to watch the whole thing, just listen to 5:30-6:30

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross

[Abrupt]

One thousand dollars a year for contraceptives sounds more like what I would imagine from a *bleep* star than a college student.

Maybe it's been awhile since college, (or longer if one hasn't attended), but that estimate may be a low average for some college students.  Some say that it's related to being away from home for the first time and pushing the limits of exploration.  Others say, "promiscious".

You could well be right.  It has been a bit since college for me.  I joined the service first to get the gi bill for college and got 'some' of my insanity out before hand.

[Abrupt]

Wow, I was almost fooled. I thought Abrupt was possibly a small government republican who loved freedom and had a mind of his own. Nope. Just a guy that reiterates Rush Limbaugh and Fox News rhetoric. You sir, are a hack. Respect lost sir.

I don't listen to Rush actually.  I am a small government conservative and maybe even a libertarian.  I want freedom for all Americans above anything else and I will fight for our freedoms too.  I am wise enough to know that if I get something for not cost at the efforts of another that both myself and the other are less free.  I am that sort of person that it is difficult to give me anything or do something for me.  You may know the type.

My thoughts in this matter are my own.  This entire presentation was a  well played and successful "control the message" effort by the Democrats.  It was brilliant on their part and seems to have worked for now, but I still remember what this is about and so am not fooled by it.

[falcon9]

It has been a bit since college for me.  I joined the service first to get the gi bill for college and got 'some' of my insanity out before hand.

Many moons for me as well.  I joined the service young, (not drafted though), and got the old GI bill.  Naturally, this was nothing like having the government pay for contraceptives, (since we had to buy those as needed, using a government paycheck ... same as the government subsidizing our beer, housing and medical care for our service).

Even while being sardonic, I understand the attitude of not wanting tax revenues to pay for things one doesn't like however, as Jon Stewart pointed out, we do this all time.  I, for one, don't want churches to be tax exempt, (which results in billions of lost tax revenue dollars).

[falcon9]

I am that sort of person that it is difficult to give me anything or do something for me.  You may know the type.

Post-apocalyptic zombie-shooting survivalist loner or, quasi-quaker?

[Abrupt]

Agreed, though expecting responsibility is a pipe dream nowadays. The best bet is just to work hard as one will always have it better doing that than the others feeding off of welfare all their lives.

I agree on your later point, but I would rather see it all crash down and start up correctly again.  Sort of a reboot.  As tough as that would be for many I thrive in such an environment and it is only at such times that I truly shine.

That health insurance companies shouldn't pay for the health of their buyers because of some religious (places that don't pay taxes) loophole? Or how this will effect the healthcare bill?

That violating freedom or religion is not something the government can do (except in cases where such freedom involves the intentional harming of others or properties..etc).  Remember that women could already get contraceptives free in over 70% of US cities/counties.  This is paid for already by taxpayers and yet there are those who would have us pay for it yet again at an even greater cost than current.  Having sex is not a disease and isn't something that tends to 'accidentally' happen and is a very strange thing to have on health insurance.  It would make the same sense to expect auto insurance to cover gasoline costs too.

Like what? How much do these treatments cost as opposed to simple birth control?

I don't know honestly and am not going to look them up.  If they are exclusively connected to birth control that should send out red flags to everyone and immediately sets off my 'scam' alert sensor.  Contraceptives should only be just that and nothing else (and many are honestly but I do know there are others with additional effects).  Lumping other things as being exclusive to contraceptives when they have nothing to do with the purpose of a contraceptive is very skeptical and a dishonest argument used strictly for leverage and gamesmanship.  When someone makes such a fallacious argument (Miss Fluke and many proponents of her points -- not you) I almost invariably am counter to anything else they may have to say in the matter and I will assume it is all deception.  I am that way in real life too, if someone mixes a lie (even a small one) into their 'truths' in order to gain something from me I will refuse it all where I might have agreed without the lie, and I will not renegotiate it again as they have shut the book on it by their attempt.

Abrupt IS a small gov't republican who obviously loves freedom. But imo he pulled the trigger a little too quickly on this one.

I think everyone should listen to Jon Stewart's rebuttle on the Rush Limbaugh pig filth even if one does not like Jon Stewart. It's quite epic and he sets the record straight. If one does not want to watch the whole thing, just listen to 5:30-6:30

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross

Thanks for the support on my small government position.  I often act suddenly, hence my handle and have done it chagrin many times.  It is who I am though and I would not change that.  In this case I still feel as I do.  Her position was deceptive because the argument was poised as a challenge to the positions of 'freedom of religion'.  It didn't address the issue in any way and instead was a deceptive trick.  As I already said it was very dubious considering the things she asked for are already provided free of charge.  It was very deceptive considering she scarcely indicated (as pointed out by other posters as a challenge to my language) the purpose of contraceptives and instead focused on side effect that have nothing at all to do with contraception.  That last bit was argued by you as well and thus you must admit it is undeniably the focus of her testimony, and strangely enough it has absolutely nothing to do with contraception (which is the sole issue that Catholics are opposed to) -- think about it.

[Abrupt]

I am that sort of person that it is difficult to give me anything or do something for me.  You may know the type.

Post-apocalyptic zombie-shooting survivalist loner or, quasi-quaker?

Maybe paranoid "whats the trick" lunatic.  I like to pretend myself to be like the Indians in the movie that have to make a fair trade.  The real truth is probably that I don't like to feel obligated to anyone and such generosity from others weights heavily upon my mind until I can pay it back and then some.

[sigmapi1501]

@Abrupt... I don't  take issue with your stance. I take issue with its originality. It is to a T (including the prostitution) angle fox and Rush have. It just felt parroted.

I don't like the idea of people asking the govt to intervene and force the insurance company to change how they do business. If mrs Fluke wants her insurance company to cover her birth control she should lobby the people that choose the insurance company. Lobby them to do business with a company that covers birth control.

[jordandog]

With all the challenges this nation faces ie staggering debt, stifling unemployment, stagnant housing markets, and the increasing chasm between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else, the U.S. Senate is acting like it's the 1950s.

Fluke's testimony came on the heels of the Senate defeated Blunt Amendment that was tacked onto a transportation bill of all things!  The amendment would have allowed employers to deny medical coverage to their employees if they [the employer] have religious or moral objections to a medical procedure the employee might want or need. In effect, Senator Blunt of Missouri is using women and their rights as a tactic to try to undermine Obama and his national health care plan. I do not agree with Obama, nor do I agree with all pieces and parts of the Healthcare Reform Act, but it gets me very riled to see a woman's right to govern her own medical care, body, and reproductive system once again being used as a tool by a body consisting of [almost] 100% males.

As far as the statement about 'other things' can be used to control cystic acne, heavy bleeding, etc., that is true in some cases. But guess what? Those other modalities carry a staggering cost in comparison to birth control/hormones and many of them are horrid on the organs and can have longterm affects. Would you want YOUR wife, partner, daughter, or mother put at such great risk?

The  amendment had NO business being put forth to begin with, but what really galls me is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Insurers cover sex-aid medications for men and I'm not hearing any 'moral objections' from hypothetical employers. So it's acceptable for men through medical insurance to get aid in sex, but not for women to control when or even if they get pregnant? It seems as if the conservatives have not bothered to consider the consequences of no birth control. We cannot feed a great percentage of adults and they now want to add more babies to the 'mix'?! Why am I NOT hearing a corresponding cry for affordable child care?
 

[sigmapi1501]

For now, most health insurance companies are private companies trying to make a profit. They should be able to decide what they cover. If you do not like the coverage, choose another company. Free market.

[Abrupt]

@Abrupt... I don't  take issue with your stance. I take issue with its originality. It is to a T (including the prostitution) angle fox and Rush have. It just felt parroted.

I don't like the idea of people asking the govt to intervene and force the insurance company to change how they do business. If mrs Fluke wants her insurance company to cover her birth control she should lobby the people that choose the insurance company. Lobby them to do business with a company that covers birth control.

I again insist that my ideas are my own and I tried to hunt for any videos of from Fox that mimicked what I said.  The only thing I found that resembled it was a Dana Perino discussions on how this was a "control the message" event.  I  never mentioned a thing about prostitution (unless I have gone completely insane.  I am not even looking back at my original post to see as that just doesn't fit with anything I would have said).  I am asking you to show me some example of this parroting as I would like to compare it with my own views on it.  You shouldn't be surprised to find some similarity from people with similar views but my thoughts are mine (although in time I am sure they will be refined by statements I  hear from others who I hold similar thinking with -- but that is only natural to everyone).  You have far more experience with Rush than I do, I don't listen to him (I rarely listen to any radio at all and tend to stick to the ipod).  On Fox I watch The Five, Redeye, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren and The Factor.

[Abrupt]

For now, most health insurance companies are private companies trying to make a profit. They should be able to decide what they cover. If you do not like the coverage, choose another company. Free market.

I completely agree with you here.  Insurance is for emergency situations that are unexpected and rare.  As Chris Rocks said, 'They shouldn't call it insurance, but "In case *bleep*"'.

[falcon9]

Insurance is for emergency situations that are unexpected and rare.  As Chris Rocks said, 'They shouldn't call it insurance, but "In case *bleep*"'.

He also went on to mention that, if it " ... doesn't happen, shouldn't you get your money back?"  Unless it's some sort of protection racket that loopholes around RICO, of course.