« President’s & Deficits Compared | Main | Santa Swiss Delivers Health Care »

Saturday, March 10, 2012



Congratulations KB, with this post you have earned the coveted Masters in False Equivalency degree. A few examples of how:

Comparing Bill Maher and Louis C.K. to Rush Limbaugh. The former are comedians while Rush is ostensibly a pundit who claims to be an entertainer but is actually a festering cyst on the body politic.

Bill Maher called a Palin a vulgar name that has no specific meaning beyond being used to vaguely describe a woman one does not like. Rush called Fluke a slut and a prostitute. The exact definition of slut may be somewhat open to interpretation, but prostitute is not.

Palin is a public figure and therefor, by your own reckoning, is expected to "take the heat". Fluke is a private citizen whose only "sin" was to testify before congress.

By the way, Flukes actual testimony (which it seems almost no one commenting on it listened to) dwells mainly on contraceptive drugs being used for medicinal purposes other than contraception but still not being covered by some institution's health plans. Bottom line, a young woman she knows suffered the loss of an ovary and will continue to suffer the attendant consequences. That suffering was not the result of a lack of health insurance. It was the result of an insurance policy not covering a specific class of drugs because the religiously-affiliated school she attended objecting to their coverage as a "matter of conscience" simply because they could be used as contraceptives. That and her not being able to afford the drugs on to of what she already was paying for health insurance under her schools policy. For the record, Georgetown does make an exception and thus covers such drugs when prescribed for non contraceptive purposes.

Also of note, the health plans being discussed are not free to students. Georgetown students reportedly pay $1,800 per year for their school-sponsored coverage. So even if contraceptives were covered with no co-pays, it would be inaccurate to say "Miss Fluke wants the rest of us to pay for her sex" as America's hate monger in chief claimed.


A.I.,"it would be inaccurate to say "Miss Fluke wants the rest of us to pay for her sex"", actually it is accurate. The reason it is accurate is because in order for contraceptives to be "free", the insurance company has to raise its rates. Now, if a guy is single and living alone and not promiscuous, why should his insurance rates go up to cover someone who is much more promiscuous. If two lesbians have no interest in having children, why should they have to pay more in insurance so a woman can have sex without worrying about conception?
Sandra Fluke turns out to be an activist. She is going to a law Jesuit law school that costs what? $50,000/year? And she is claiming contraception is costing over $1000/year. I submit if a woman, or anybody else, is spending that much on tuition, that person should have enough cash to purchase her contraception. Unless there are some unusual circumstances, this should not cost more than a couple of hundred dollars per year. And should the woman choose to have protected sex to hopefully prevent an STD, it should not cost more than 1/2 dollar per time. And in this case, she could insist the guy purchase the item. To top it off, if that woman chose to not engage in the type of activity that could result in pregnancy, her costs would be $0. So, yes, Sandra Fluke is advocating other people paying so she can have sex without the worry of conception. BTW, I do not believe insurance companies should pay for things like ED, either.



It arguably costs insurance companies--and therefore you or I--nothing to cover contraception when balanced against savings they accrue from avoiding costs associated with unplanned pregnancies. But even if contraception does result in a minimal net cost to insurers and thus increases everyone's premiums, society saves money by avoiding costs associated with unplanned pregnancies. Of course those costs would not be shared through government programs in the Libertarian Utopia many on the Right aspire to create, but that does not mean they would go away.

Yes, women can chose not to have sex--to a degree. But assuming they are "allowed" to date in the abstinence world you seem to advocate, what about date rape? Of course most rapes occur in situations other than dates and last I heard, few rapists are much concerned with providing birth control.

When sex is consensual, one can, as you say, buy a condom for 50 cents. They are effective against both STD's and conception, but not 100% so. Does it not make more sense to increase the odds against pregnancy by employing a second birth control measure?

Overall, what I am saying to you dugger is your objections are duly noted, but will go unheeded because the vast majority of us believe insurance should cover contraception. Reasons may vary, but for me it is a belief that people will do, and always have done, sexually as they please regardless of what others may say. To me, it makes sense to give them every opportunity to include an element of responsibility.

Ken Blanchard

A.I.: so its okay for a Comedian who hosts a talk show, but not a talk show host who isn't a comedian, to call someone a cunt, but not a slut or a prostitute, if that someone is a public figure, but not a law student testifying before Congress. Did I get all that right? Three years of defending Obama has left you with a mental and moral dexterity that I can hardly aspire to.

So when Anderson Cooper made his infamous comment about "tea baggers" (that its hard to talk when you're teabagging), a very explicit sexual innuendo directed at tens of thousands of non-public figures, what was that? I await your calculations.

D.E. Bishop

The debasing talk that public figures use, whether they are politicians, entertainers, pundits, or anyone else is sickening to me. I abhor what Maher said as much as what Limbaugh or Schulz said. I don't think Maher or Limbaugh were repentant either. I watched the video of Schulz's apology, and he deserves kudos for that.

Dugger, many students who attend expensive schools like Georgetown, do so on scholarship, in addition to loans and a variety of other monetary sources. They don't have a nickel left over. Ramen noodles.

The biggest point to me is this:

Birth control pills are a prescription only medication. The patient and her doctor decide on the course to be taken. The doctor writes a prescription. It is not anyone else's business to know what specific purpose the patient and her doctor have for this medication. We do not have the right to approve or disapprove of another's personal and private health care needs. The insurance company needs to approve it and the pharmacist needs to fill the prescription. That's all.

We do not have a role in a stranger's medical decisions. Who do we think we are, that our personal feelings/beliefs, etc., ought to play a role in what someone else does with their health?

Not only do we as individual citizens have no part in another's health care, neither do institutions. Neither a church, nor a business, nor an organization, nor an institution has any business in that individual's health care plan. None of those are Big Brother.

A church has every right to preach, persuade, convince, establish their belief system. They do not have a right to coerce nonmembers, through monetary means, to agree. In my personal opinion, any coercion even of members ought to be done very carefully, if at all. But that's opinion and many may disagree.

These "conscience clauses" are crap. Pharmacists, doctors, nurses, EMTs, all have a job to do. They don't get to pick and choose. They don't get to control another person when it comes to something legal. Do your job. If you don't like something, work to get it changed. If you are unsuccessful, and you feel you cannot abide by the law, find another line of work.

Bill Fleming

Ken, don't you get it?

Advertisers pulling their money from Rush's program is their way of telling him that if he's going to call women who use contraceptives sluts, he's a dick.

It's a First Amendment exercise all around. Everybody gets to speak up and face the consequences.

Ken Blanchard

D.E.B.: on the conscience clause topic you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Do you think that Doctors should be legally compelled to perform abortions or participate in executions? That would be abhorrent. As I pointed out, pharmacies and doctors can refuse to stock, dispense, or prescribe legal medicines on a wide range of grounds. Should it be illegal for them to make such a judgment only if it is religiously motivated? That is a clean violation of the Free Exercise Clause. It's still in the Constitution, even if you don't like it.

I think a person should be free to pay for plastic surgery. I don't think that I should have to pay for it. I have no problem paying insurance premiums that cover contraception as long as that doesn't include abortion. We are talking about my freedom here, even if you don't like it.

Ken Blanchard

Bill: I don't disagree with anything you say, but that was not what I was writing about. Advertisers can pull the plug on Rush if they want to. Fine. But if you tell me that Rush did something terrible while you aren't the least bit offended by Bill Maher, then I am free to point out that you are a hypocrite.

Mark Anderson

Ken, you left out the best of Rush: he said “So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.” I believe that he went on for two days on his show about this, do you really think that's the equivalent of what Bill Maher said? Just scientifically speaking of course.

Bill Fleming

I think Bill Maher is free to exercise his 1st Amendment rights and face the consequences, same as Rush, Fluke, you, me, and the advertisers. Oh wait, Bill Maher doesn't have advertisers. People pay to watch him. Different business model.

larry kurtz

Limbaugh defamed a private individual; Maher did not.


D.E., Regardless of what a person is eating when they attend a high priced school, if it is a school that has a health insurance plan that does not include ED treatment, then it is up to the individual to decide whether he/she wants to attend that school. The same is true with birth control pills. Birth control pills in most cases have little to do with medical decisions. Birth control pills stop the body from doing what it is designed to do. And in the bottom line, Sandra Fluke's estimates of what it costs for three years of birth control are just not true. She is either lying, or spreading an untruth without knowing it.
A.I., Please do not try to justify something by weighing the costs of birth control against the cost of pregnancy. That is up to the insurance company to decide whether the cost/benefit is worth it to them. It should not be up to the government.
And, Bill, yes some advertisers pulled their ads. Several have also asked to come back. At least one has been told thanks, but not thanks. And in the spirit of BHO criticizing Rush, perhaps his superpac should return Maher's donation?

larry kurtz

Barnes: is your obesity a problem for your health care insuror?

Bill Fleming

Here's duggerSD doing what he does best. Blaming the victims.


Your initial point dugger was that you should not be forced to pay for someone else's contraception. I was simply explaining that if there was no net cost, there would be nothing for you to pay for. You can rail against government telling insurance companies what they must cover and I can rail against paying for wars I disagree with, but neither of will get anywhere.

Thanks for passing along the Anderson Cooper quote KB, I hadn't heard it before. It is technically inaccurate though as I would think one participant would be able to speak. I wonder though which is the teabagger and which is the teabaggee.

Seriously though, I didn't say it was okay for Maher to call Palin anything. I simply repeated your contention that public figures are susceptible to insults. I added that I think there is a distinction between a public figure and someone who testifies before congress once.

Others posting here have pointed out correctly that Maher's slur was directed only at Palin while Limbaugh's was directed at Fluke and "feminazis", a term that in this instance might logically be construed to include all women and perhaps men that agree with Fluke's position. So while all women and men should be offended on Palin's behalf, Maher's offense was not personal to them. The same can't be said for Limbaugh's language. He basically said every woman who thinks insurance companies should cover contraception is a slut and a prostitute and all of them owe him a sex tape.

So again there is a distinction KB. And, it is a distinction with a difference.

D.E. Bishop

KB, because we don't agree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I gave my opinion. It is what it is.

I didn't say anything about the death penalty or abortions. I'm talking about my personal health care choices. They are not your business, or anyone else's. So what if I'm using birth control because I don't want to get pregnant. That is not your business. It's my legitimate and legal health care decision in conjunction with my doctor. No one else plays a part in it. Those trying to limit insurance to only items they approve of are wrong to do so.

Death penalty is a decision of the state. I don't know how they contract for that service. At any rate, it's not a health care decision and is not insured. As for other health care needs, unless a professional is not properly trained or educated to proceed, yes indeed they need to do it. Their conscience does not trump my personal health care choices and needs. Yes, that includes abortion.

Since doctors are generally quite specialized these days, a surgeon can easily avoid learning how to do abortions. Med schools do not required students to study that particular procedure.

All these Repub sexuality issues are bogus. Why are they so focused on women's sex to begin with? Personally, I find that much more academically interesting than a woman's private health care and sexual behavior. Seriously.


I am often blogging and i really appreciate your content. The article has really peaked my interest. I am going to bookmark your site and keep checking for new information.
That is a great point to bring up. Thanks for the post.

john davidson


Hmmm, not so sure. Here is how we won WWII, the big one, as they say.

These pics are awesome, please let me know what you think of them. Not the ones of the men but those of the women.


Not so sure that is how we keep Nazism away...

God bless,

john davidson

Oops, here is the link, sorry... http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com/303194.html?thread=22669914

john davidson

I know, off topic, oh well.

john davidson

Pics take a minute to load...worth it.


D.E., if you do not wish to become pregnant there are certain things you can do. You can abstain from the activity that causes that. That is your choice. You can use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. That is your choice. By all means choose what you want to do. Just don't force other people to pay for it. If your employer believes providing contraceptives is appropriate, I am sure it will find an insurer who will provide it. There is no such thing as free contraception short of abstention. BTW, and interesting article that does a great job of illustrating just where this can all lead. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265461876605408.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
And here is Bill doing what he does best. Claiming someone is doing something there is no evidence for.

larry kurtz

Back to my point: why should insurors not have an interest in whether someone has made a choice to be obese?

D.E. Bishop

And Dugger, one of my choices can be to have sexual intercourse if I want to. Geez! Sex is not a bad thing! It's fun! It's pleasurable, it's a normal human behavior! for pete's sake. Insurance pays for lots of human behaviors, including self-destructive ones like smoking-created illnesses and addiction treatments.

It's just sex! I know Santorum has said that sex should only happen for the purposes of procreation. If that is so, male masturbation must be criminalized.

Otherwise, butt out of my sex life (What sex life!) and focus on your own.

D.E. Bishop

Larry, obesity is not that simple, even though it's very popular to stigmatize obese people as lazy, degenerate, lacking self-control, etc.

I won't go into it more. Suffice it to say that in the past two years I've lost 200 lbs and got my life back. It's incredible.

Oh, and I don't see that you were piling on obese people, I just wanted to stop that before it happened. Otherwise, I like your question.

If we are going to control women's sexuality, are we also going to control other social/personal choices? That would include obesity, smoking, exercise/lack of, alcohol consumption, drug use, computer use, etc.

john davidson



D. E. I am not telling you not to have sex. I am not even telling you to go to a Catholic institution. And if your employer pays for contraception, so be it. But if your employer does not pay for contraception, I am only saying for you to take it upon yourself to avoid pregnancy. That means you might have to pay $10 per month to cover it. Just don't ask someone who believes contraception is immoral to pay for your "immoral" act. Geez!

larry kurtz

Congratulations, Ms. Bishop; having you as a contributor to our blog community has been a dose of oxygen in the chemical toilet that is South Dakota.

The Roman Church has monopolies in health care in so many areas it should be considered for scrutiny under RICO statutes. Seeing it incrementally squeezed out of the eventual adoption of single-payer care makes this commie squeal with anticipation.

If only Secretary Panetta would target the Vatican with drones as vigorously as hacker/patriots Anonymous has been doing with DOS attacks.

john davidson

Larry - Comments like that make me lose faith in you.

The comments to this entry are closed.