Rush Limbaugh: Student who advocates insurance for oral contraceptive is a "slut"

[KiplingsCat]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1311640.html

The issue:

Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, was supposed to be the Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Fluke eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing, and talked about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She mentioned in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.

The response:

"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

Interwebs, why is this happen?

When will people stop trying to make women ashamed in order to shut them up? It obviously doesn't work.

Also, silly billy thinking that the amount of sex you have is proportional to the amount of birth control pills you need. It doesn't work like that.

 

[CptStern]

he's preaching to the retard choir who believe every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

A private employer should not be forced to pay for a benefit or product they do not want to. The arguement that 'oh you're a slut' has nothing to do with it regardless of if they are or aren't. It's about freedom of choice.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm not convinced that the Govt should force insurance companies to cover birth control used to prevent reproduction, but for medical conditions like that cyst thing or whatever, then yeah, a doctor should be able to prescribe it for that reason I guess. I mean, you choose to have sex, so why shouldn't you pay for it?

I'm not very well versed in... well... insurance in general. But surely there are insurance plans that do cover birth control, even if its at a higher premium. If you want the extra protection/discount for all the risky sex your having, you should pay a higher premium to have it covered, just like the guy who goes on risky hang gliding adventures all the time should pay higher premiums for bone-healing medpacks or whatever.

And are companies forced to cover boner pills? Because thats stupid, and if we're going by precedent, then yeah BC should be forced to be covered too, or else stop forcing boner pills to be covered.

Oh, and Rush Limbaugh is an idiot and etc. Do we really need to make a new thread every time he says something retarded? Can't we just have a non-Limbaugh based discussion on topics like this?

 

[KiplingsCat]

Being Irish, this is the first time I've heard of Rush Limbaugh. And yes, I agree with you. This debate isn't about sex, it's about what insurance companies should and shouldn't have to cover. But, as Toaster mentioned, why birth control? Why not hysterectomies, vasectomies, Viagra and the many other medical procedures that prevent you from having babies/help you have sex? As for the whole "you choose to have sex" thing, I should think at this stage, after the millions upon millions of years that humans have been doing it, that sex would be no longer seen as a "lifestyle choice" as just "that thing people do". I mean, you choose to go outside every day, but if a car drives up on the pavement and pins you to the wall, no insurance company is going to be like "well why didn't you stay inside?"

Now, that said, I live in a country where abortion is still illegal, and I pay for my own birth control (there was a place that used to give it to me for free, but the government cut their funding. The government at least had the decency not to justify it by touting their narrow views of what women should and shouldn't be doing, they just came straight out and said they hadn't the money. Which was fine).

But you know, I didn't even make the thread to have that debate really (although that's ok too). I made it to highlight how difficult it is for women to debate their issues in a public forum without people calling them sluts and whores, even if it's kind of unrelated to what they're talking about.

 

[Bad^Hat]

A private employer should not be forced to pay for a benefit or product they do not want to. The arguement that 'oh you're a slut' has nothing to do with it regardless of if they are or aren't. It's about freedom of choice.

Your health care system is pretty ****ed up to begin with when you have to depend on your employer to choose to cover you for certain things. Not really what the thread is about but damn you guys need some serious health care reform up in that bitch.

As for the whole "you choose to have sex" thing, I should think at this stage, after the millions upon millions of years that humans have been doing it, that sex would be no longer seen as a "lifestyle choice" as just "that thing people do".

You'd think.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Your health care system is pretty ****ed up to begin with when you have to depend on your employer to choose to cover you for certain things. Not really what the thread is about but damn you guys need some serious health care reform up in that bitch

Exactly...I mean, Jehova's Witnesses, for example, are against blood transfusions. Suppose, hypothetically, they ran a college that covered health care for students and for some reason I went to it, and found myself in the situation of needing some new blood. Would anyone sane stand over their decision not to provide it for me on the basis of religious freedom?

 

[Krynn72]

As for the whole "you choose to have sex" thing, I should think at this stage, after the millions upon millions of years that humans have been doing it, that sex would be no longer seen as a "lifestyle choice" as just "that thing people do". I mean, you choose to go outside every day, but if a car drives up on the pavement and pins you to the wall, no insurance company is going to be like "well why didn't you stay inside?"

Going outside is a required element for a functional society, having non-reproductive sex is not. You have non-reproductive sex for the thrills and fun of it. A better comparison would be someone going outside and playing human frogger on a highway. Should an insurance company pay for your injuries just because you sought a thrill? Thats why I did the sky diver comparison. Injuries/babbys received when you put yourself in direct risk of said consequence, simply for the fun of it, shouldn't really be something companies are forced to cover.

 

[ríomhaire]

I think there is a case to be made that having sex can have a pretty big part to play in keeping your mental health.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Going outside is a required element for a functional society, having non-reproductive sex is not.

Really? I mean, granted, the world would still turn if we only had sex during the 3-4 days or so that we ovulate, but do you really think that sex, and a healthy attitude to having sex, are so unimportant? Having sex is not the same as going to the cinema, or going on a rollercoaster, or hang-gliding. If you think that, you may be doing it wrong.

I mean, obviously sex is tremendous fun, but that doesn't mean it isn't also important and good for you. I just don't understand why people still are so skittish about it. Back in the good old days, when the church first started with the whole "sex-is-for-sinners" thing, it kind of made sense not to go around having it with too many people, because of the obvious health/baby risks associated. But now, as Toaster said, we don't need to have that risk associated with sex anymore. In this day and age of condoms and pills and vasectomies, sex could be 99% risk free for everyone if we didn't still have these hang-ups bred into us by generations of people who couldn't go around sleeping with just anyone because there were no condoms. All the practical reasons not to have sex are gone. People should relax.

To be honest, contraception isn't even the main reason I take the pill (I'm so forgetful that I sincerely doubt how effective it really is for me). Without it, I become practically incapacitated once a month, and I've never heard of another medication that so reliably makes that go away. It also makes my hair and skin super-shiny. People don't like it because it's branded as being for birth control (a silly reason not to like something, for reasons discussed above), but it's really so much more than that. It's like a Making-Womanhood-Easier drug. It's fantastic.

Edit: Waitwaitwait hold up now. I just read this again and realized what you were saying:

I mean, you choose to have sex, so why shouldn't you pay for it?

So are you saying that you can only have sex if you can afford it? That only the well-off deserve to have safe sex, and tough cookies to those people who can't afford birth control but want to make love? Because if that's what you're saying.....****, that's cold, man.

 

[KiplingsCat]

I really don't buy the idea that a healthy sex life is abnormally risky behavior, or tbh anything other than an integral part of our biology.

Yeah, when I researched this story, I saw a lot of "you could always choose not to have sex", "don't expect us to pay for your sexual habits" etc...as if the desire for a normal sex life was somehow a strange demand (when let's face it, from a biological standpoint, it's a lot less strange than purposefully and deliberately not having sex (unless you're asexual)).

 

[unozero]

This Fluke lady isn't even talking about low income women she is talking about women in general on her Campus etc.
So you afford law school and probably a $80 a month cellphone but you cannot pay $50a month for the pill?
That $3000 figure she mentioned is a flat out lie!

 

[Krynn72]

Forgive me in advance if I mess up these here quotes, you two posted a whole wall of text for me to respond to. I am going to try to consolidate some answers into one response, so if you feel I ignored something, then thats probably because I feel like I answered it somewhere else (or I did, unintentionally, ignore it).

ffffffuuuucking this, couldn't put it better myself. Sex is an essential part of who we are (excepting asexuality which is different from 'I just don't feel like having sex right now') and we have the means to do it for its own sake almost completely ethically (i.e. without much risk of creating a life that can't be taken care of properly). Why do we still have these hang ups about it? Why do we still treat it like some weird, external choice rather than a fundamental part of our biology?

This is probably my primary point of disagreement. Just because we have a compulsion to have sex doesn't really make it "an essential part of who we are" and certainly doesn't make it inherently ethical (though to be clear, I'm not saying its unethical, just that the fact that we feel the compulsion doesn't determine whether it is or not). Saying that because we have a compulsion to do something means it should be perfectly ok to do it is one hell of a slippery slope. Honestly, I don't think non-reproductive sex could possibly be considered an essential part of who we are, nor a mandatory component to our mental health. Its something people do for fun, like playing games. I dont deny the cathartic effects of it, but given the plethora of alternative activities that have similar results, I disagree that its something even remotely close to being a necessary activity for health reasons, especially given the risks involved.

Also this. It's no accident that when an issue like this primarily affects women, it gets mocked, trivialized, and shamed. It's p-p-p-patriarchy! And before anyone wants to gear up for a cage match over that one I'd just like to point that patriarchy is not a group of balding men sitting in a plush office on the 72nd floor overlooking the city while rubbing their palms together and discussing their new nation-wide sexual harassment plan, it's about examining the effects of men holding the majority of positions of power in a society. Turns out: not a lot of sympathy for women's issues, and a fair amount of benefit in marginalizing them & making sure they can't speak out against it. Like the blood transfusion example – suddenly when the thing in question is gender-neutral, it seems genuinely absurd to allow those kind of restrictions. Another example is the story about faulty breast implants in France awhile back; if it had been discovered that thousands of people had been tattoos with harmful chemicals in the ink, do you think it would've trivialized and shamed nearly as much? Sure, there would still be people saying that a voluntary cosmetic procedure carries risks, but I rather doubt that it would lead to the repeated accusations of shallowness, vanity, obsession with appearance & so on (inclusively directed at women receiving reconstruction surgery after breast cancer mind you).

I certainly hope you don't think I'm defending the language being used in this debate. I agree with everything you've said in this bit, one hundred percent. Its absolutely depressing that people in positions of power take this attitude.

As KCat said in the OP, the amount of birth control you take doesn't really correlate to how much sex you have. I was on the pill for two years before I even lost my virginity. You can say that it should be available for people who need it for medical conditions, but putting up the hurdle in the first place is problematic. If hormonal birth control really is controversial enough to only be covered in cases of need, then what confers medical legitimacy strong enough to allow coverage? If someone has severe menstrual cramping, then do they need to prove that they've tried everything else before they go on the pill, meanwhile having to juggle their work/school schedule around their cycle? How severe does the cramping need to be? If someone just wants more regular cycles for the sake of their career or schoolwork, then is that okay? Basically, there are a lot of things that birth control can be good for, and I really don't see anyone offering any good reason to limit women and trans men in their treatment options, I only see people trying to trivialize the matter by narrowing the focus of the debate.

The argument of "where do you draw the line" in this case doesn't really impress me. There is plenty of precedent for this already, and drawing the line a major part of what insurance companies do and have been doing for decades.

also this tbh, no real reason why we shouldn't just nationalize that shit

I agree that employers deciding your insurance plan is just straight up nonsensical.

But now, as Toaster said, we don't need to have that risk associated with sex anymore. In this day and age of condoms and pills and vasectomies, sex could be 99% risk free for everyone if we didn't still have these hang-ups bred into us by generations of people who couldn't go around sleeping with just anyone because there were no condoms. All the practical reasons not to have sex are gone. People should relax.

All the practical reasons could be gone you mean. The argument here boils down to who should be paying for it to be so.

So are you saying that you can only have sex if you can afford it? That only the well-off deserve to have safe sex, and tough cookies to those people who can't afford birth control but want to make love? Because if that's what you're saying.....****, that's cold, man.

Um, I guess thats kind of what I am saying. I dont see why people shouldn't be responsible for the risks they take, which is kind of my whole argument, yeah. That doesn't apply to just sex, as I've mentioned a couple times, but anyone taking extra risk should be the ones who cover the extra cost. I mean, I'm all for insurance having to cover some basic healthcare costs, but I think this reflects our disagreement on the importance of non-reproductive sex, since I believe you see it as a basic health issue while I kinda don't.

I don't really understand your argument here. I mean, from what I can see you're saying that birth control creates the risk of pregnancy or infection by enabling people to have active sex lives, that people have sex because they take the pill as opposed to taking the pill because they have sex

Errr, nope. Thats not what I'm saying. See the above for a hopefully clearer explanation of my stance.

&Also the argument that's being pushed in the bill is that employers shouldn't have to pay for birth control if it conflicts with their religious beliefs – nothing about risk.

I disagree with the notion that it should be deniable on religious grounds whist forced on other grounds.

There's also this. In the former half of this post I entertained the idea of hormonal birth control being solely a contraceptive 4 the sake of argument n all, but, well, that's simply not the case. Most men only experience birth control as 'that thing my girlfriend takes so I can put my bare willy in her without a nasty surprise nine months later,' but most women will tell you that it does a lot more than that for them. Still, because the cis-hetero male perspective is the unspoken default in our society, we don't really concern ourselves with the subjective experience of women that often. Thanks, patriarchy. Thantriachy.

Kiplings touched on this as well, and I think perhaps the reason the contraceptive part of contraception is focused on is because its called contraceptive. But even if we were talking about a non-contraceptive pill that did all these other things, I dont see why companies should be forced to cover it. For the same reason I dont think, say, Enzyte, The once-daily tablet for natural male enhancement! should be covered. Its benefits are good for some people, but its not a basic health requirement.



So basically my position boils down to:

A) That companies shouldn't be forced to cover non basic healthcare items like boner pills or contraceptive. Electing to cover it is A-OK though.
B) That non-reproductive sex isn't a mandatory component of a healthy person
C) That people should be financially responsible for healthcare issues that they put themselves at higher risk for, be it sex or rally car racing.
D) People should have the option to chose what their plan covers (and pay the related costs), not their employer.

 

[KiplingsCat]

This Fluke lady isn't even talking about low income women she is talking about women in general on her Campus etc.
So you afford law school and probably a $80 a month cellphone but you cannot pay $50a month for the pill?
That $3000 figure she mentioned is a flat out lie!

Well...yes but the point still stands that (a) a health insurance that picks and chooses for you based on "morality" or whatever is kind of dodgy, and (b) women who speak up for their needs are not whores. Or if they are whores, then we should all aspire to being whores. Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

Its something people do for fun, like playing games.

No...just...no, sorry. No. Seriously, have you just had some really bad sex or something? Because I can't understand what else would make you equate these two things which are so unalike. I have sex for fun, yes. But I also do it to maintain my well-being, to make myself feel better, to maintain my relationship and to tell my boyfriend how much I love him. You just can't do that over a game of chess.

given the plethora of alternative activities that have similar results

Could you name some?

especially given the risks involved.

Risks which could be eliminated if universal contraception were embraced. I mean seriously, this is about so much more than just "having some fun". Humans, everywhere, all the time, for time immemorial have been having sex for pleasure. It's not going to change. People aren't going to stop. People shouldn't be expected to stop. IT'S WHAT WE DO. And shit's going to just get worse unless the world adopts a more accepting attitude to this fact. Sure, insurance cover for contraception might cost the taxpayer an infinitesimal amount more (and I mean really tiny here, as most of this stuff isn't going to break the bank), but isn't it better in the long run if it means less unwanted babies and STDs?

Um, I guess thats kind of what I am saying. I dont see why people shouldn't be responsible for the risks they take, which is kind of my whole argument, yeah. That doesn't apply to just sex, as I've mentioned a couple times, but anyone taking extra risk should be the ones who cover the extra cost.

So the rich get to have all the sex they want while the poor are forced into abstemiousness as a result of their poverty? (Or in reality, the poor have sex anyway BECAUSE IT'S WHAT WE DO, and end up with families they either don't want or can't support?) Sex for pleasure has been around way longer than these constructs of class and status, so I don't really see why trying to turn it into some sort of commodity only available to the well-heeled seems like any kind of solution to you. What about married couples who don't want/can't afford kids? What are they supposed to do? Not have sex until they get better jobs? Please. SEX IS NOT A LUXURY ITEM. It's part of a healthy relationship. It's part of life. It's always been part of life. Deal with it.

Kiplings touched on this as well, and I think perhaps the reason the contraceptive part of contraception is focused on is because its called contraceptive. But even if we were talking about a non-contraceptive pill that did all these other things, I dont see why companies should be forced to cover it. For the same reason I dont think, say, Enzyte, The once-daily tablet for natural male enhancement! should be covered. Its benefits are good for some people, but its not a basic health requirement.

Neither are hearing aids, acne medication, breast reductions, anti-inflammatories or many other things that probably would be covered by health insurance, by your reckoning. What's your point? You CANNOT UNDERSTAND how wonderful the pill is because you have never menstruated. End of story.

I'm sorry. I don't, like, hate you or anything. I just feel very, very strongly about this.

 

[Krynn72]

I've gotta say, I feel like none of your arguments have any substance beyond your own feelings. All your reasoning is just so... intangible. "ITS WHAT WE DO" for instance, isn't much of an argument. In fact its not an argument at all. And "maintaining my relationship" / "tell my boyfriend how much I love him" are just... I dont know how to say it, but there's no substance to the notion. You're trying to make it sound like good health and relationships couldn't exist without non-reproductive sex, which is just foolish.

You're also acting like I think all this stuff shouldn't be covered by insurance... period, which is just making up an argument that I am not proposing. I'm saying people should pay for the coverage they want, and insurance companies should cover what they want.

 

[KiplingsCat]

And "maintaining my relationship" / "tell my boyfriend how much I love him" are just... I dont know how to say it, but there's no substance to the notion.

By that I mean that for many people, it's more than just a game or a diversion. Sex isn't that trivial or straightforward. It's different for everyone. Perhaps you've just never really experienced it the way I have, I don't know.

You're acting like sex isn't the norm for humans, that it's just some amusing diversion that we dreamed up for our amusement. To me, that is as much to do with your feelings about it as my opinions on the matter are to do with mine. Neither of us can say that what we believe is fact.

What is a fact, however, is that sex has been happening for a long, long time, longer than insurance, or money even. I don't think it's as simple as not doing it if you feel you can't afford the risk. I'm entirely with Toaster when she says it's a fundamental part of our biology. Those hormones are just a part of us. You can ignore them in the same way that you can ignore a headache. But that doesn't change the fact that the desire to have sex is fundamentally biological.

You're trying to make it sound like good health and relationships couldn't exist without non-reproductive sex, which is just foolish.

I just straight up disagree. I mean, yeah, a relationship probably can exist without sex, but I think a healthy sex life is an important aspect of an adult relationship, and something that does need to be taken into consideration as more than just "a bit of fun".

 

[Krynn72]

What is a fact, however, is that sex has been happening for a long, long time, longer than insurance, or money even. I don't think it's as simple as not doing it if you feel you can't afford the risk. I'm entirely with Toaster when she says it's a fundamental part of our biology. Those hormones are just a part of us. You can ignore them in the same way that you can ignore a headache. But that doesn't change the fact that the desire to have sex is fundamentally biological.

Its a part of our biology, absolutely. A fundamental and required element of "who we are" on a psychological and personality level is a different matter. Again, saying that because we have chemical reactions to stimuli, or physical compulsions to do something doesn't make said somethings a fundamental part of who we are. That fact that it exists in our DNA is not grounds for anything to be considered good, bad, or acceptable, its entirely irrelevant. I've been hesitant to bring this up due to inevitable accusations of hyperbole, but If you say that its ok to have sex because I'm compelled to do so by my biology, then its a slippery slope right down to its ok for me to beat someone to death because I felt threatened. After all we're biologically compelled to remove the objects of our perceived danger. So I say again, to be clear, the fact that we're compelled to do something is entirely irrelevant when discussing whether we should, or whether its healthy.

As for the rest of your post, I believe we've come to a point where there's nothing left for me to say other than I am unconvinced, and continue to disagree.

 

[KiplingsCat]

but If you say that its ok to have sex because I'm compelled to do so by my biology, then its a slippery slope right down to its ok for me to beat someone to death because I felt threatened.

Do you think there are situations where it's not ok to have (consensual-with-an-adult) sex then?

And I never said anything about biologically compelled....more like biologically inclined. Which is why sex is different to playing games and seeking thrills, which is the main point I'm trying to make here.

Edit: I mean look I'm all for abstinence if it's what people choose, I just don't think it should be forced on a couple because of their financial situation. I think that could be really detrimental to the quality of a couple's relationship. Here in Ireland, most of us pay for our own contraception, but I've never heard of a situation where it's not been available to those who can't afford it...there are all sorts of medical and healthcare schemes here for people who really don't have the money...we have this means-tested medical card which covers necessary healthcare, including the pill.

 

[Krynn72]

Do you think there are situations where it's not ok to have (consensual-with-an-adult) sex then?

Mom-son sex is not ok. Bro-sis is A-OK in my book though. Really, what do you expect me to say to this? Out of all the possible situations that exist in the universe, yeah of course some of will be inappropriate situations for sex.

And I never said anything about biologically compelled....more like biologically inclined.

Semantics. Doesn't change my point.

Which is why sex is different to playing games and seeking thrills, which is the main point I'm trying to make here.

Really? We're compelled to play games and inclined to have sex, so thats why its different?

Edit: I mean look I'm all for abstinence if it's what people choose, I just don't think it should be forced on a couple because of their financial situation. I think that could be really detrimental to the quality of a couple's relationship. Here in Ireland, most of us pay for our own contraception, but I've never heard of a situation where it's not been available to those who can't afford it...there are all sorts of medical and healthcare schemes here for people who really don't have the money...we have this means-tested medical card which covers necessary healthcare, including the pill.

The cost of the pill shouldn't be as expensive as it is, and the price is a result of a myriad of other problems like with pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies lobbying the government to let them keep such healthcare costs high. Forcing it to be covered so people can afford it is treating a small symptom of a much larger and more important issue, and not a very good way at treating the symptom at that.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Really? We're compelled to play games and inclined to have sex, so thats why its different?

Good heavens, no, that's not what I was saying at all, you completely missed my point there. What I was saying, and have been saying all along (so I'm surprised that this is what you think I was saying) is that sex is not like just playing a game, or mindlessly entertaining yourself, or whatever. Those things are trivial, and peripheral, and inherently different to having sex. Sex is not like that. It's an important, some would say vital, part of an adult relationship. Playing chess is not.

I'm tired of this now. This isn't even why I started the thread.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I can understand for medical reasons such as the prevention of cysts. But this boyfriend/relationship business certainly doesn't sound like it qualifies as something insurance should cover, especially when there's people that actually have those other such issues. But I'm a guy, so what the hell do I know.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Look...yeah. To be honest, I'm beginning to understand why an insurance company wouldn't care about this (being the mindless bureaucracy machines that they are). It has taken me a while, because I live in a country where your financial situation/employer really has nothing to do with the kind of healthcare you receive, including birth control.

So I get where you're coming from, but I still think contraception should be pretty much universally available (whether or not it has anything to do with insurance companies), because that would really solve lots and lots of problems, eg unwanted babies, STDs, etc, etc...I just think that sex is pretty much by default something that people do, and as such there's a need for contraception to be widely and cheaply/freely available to those who need it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Krynn, I don't really understand the logic you're employing in this thread to describe sex as something "fun" or "extra," even going so far as to compare it to things like skydiving. This would be a much more apt comparison if people felt regularly compelled to jump out of planes sans parachute. More to the point, if they did, do you not think the public might feel compelled to share that burden in some way, to cover the cost of parachutes so that thrill-seeking idiots didn't splatter themselves for the sheer pleasure of experiencing terminal velocity? Okay, this is a pretty terrible analogy and I feel like I've opened myself up to some glib comment about natural selection, so I'll try to put my argument in clearer terms: people are going to ****. They're gonna, and there's no reasonable way to stop them. You keep pointing out that it's a "risk," but really that's much more true under a system where contraceptives are difficult to obtain. You define paying for it out of pocket as people "taking responsibility," but that makes poor sense when the people who are least able to take that "responsibility" are also the ones who would probably be most willing to. After all, they're also the ones who can most ill afford the consequences of those "risks" you keep pointing out, no? However you choose to define it semantically, it's undeniably in our nature to **** (for reasons outlined in gross detail above :v), so really the argument for readily available contraceptives is a simple matter of risk management. As a pro-choicer, I'd consider it worthwhile simply to avoid more unneeded abortions, among many other reasons.

Anyway sorry for the dog-pile (HAHAHAHAHAHA :|) but it seemed like the discussion was getting off the rails a bit with all this talk of ethicalness and stuff that really doesn't have shit to do with the issue at hand. I wasn't going to post because I don't really know the ins and outs of your terrible, terrible healthcare system, but hopefully this makes enough sense to apply to any system, no matter how irretrievably ****ed.

 

[ríomhaire]

Bat^Hat seems to have already said the main point of what I was going to say two days ago and Toaster said pretty much everything else (by the way Toaster, the new site doesn't seem to support your animated avatar in forum posts, that could be because it's been resized, try reuploading it at a 100x100 resolution).

I was going to say a few things, but I don't think I need to now looking up. So I'll just repeat one thing: Sex is a thing that happens. It happens all the time to lots of people. We're naturally designed to do it as much as possible. Sex is pretty much the default thing that we do after eating, sleeping and breathing. People are going to **** no matter what. People are going to **** like stupid horny rabbits all the time. It's a pretty widely publicised fact that the States in the US that teach abstinence as the only effective means of birth control have a higher teenage pregnancy rate. People have sex and people without contraception just have unprotected sex. Someone who is having sex is not engaging in risky behaviour. They are engaging in absolutely normal behaviour. Any sort of sensible plan or system should be designed with the initial assumption that people will regularly be having sex. Anything is else pretty much just contrary to facts.

 

[KiplingsCat]

So I had plenty of time to mull this issue over/torture myself while the website was down this week. It's both the easiest and most difficult political/ethical issue I've ever thought about it. It was easy because I could straight up say that sex isn't like skydiving or any of it, people just do it and that's just how it is.

It was difficult because I didn't really know how to justify that. Nobody, not any doctor or healthcare worker, not that branch of my extended family who are all medical professionals, not my mother, has ever given me to understand that sex isn't just this thing which just happens. Toaster and BadHat have done a decent job, I think, of justifying it...at least, they're saying what I was trying to say. I would see celibacy as optional and sex as the default, rather than the other way around. And considering it's only a risk if you don't use contraception, and considering it's a fairly uniform aspect of the human condition, to me it seems like a fairly straightforward issue of contraception being a basic healthcare need, and as such it should provided where others are also being provided, be it by an insurance company, a means tested medical scheme, or whatever way it works where you live.

Also, if a doctor writes a prescription for you (for anything), presumably he/she knows better than an insurance company about whether or not you need it. So if you're holding a prescription from a doctor that certifies that you need a thing, then presumably nobody but another doctor really has the authority to question that.

 

[Krynn72]

You all keep repeating the same "its what we do brah" argument like its going to convince me now despite not convincing me the last time you said it.

Also, doctors prescribe luxury (ie, not needed) medications all the time. Insurance companies being forced to cover stuff just because a doctor prescribes it is a terrible idea.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Also, doctors prescribe luxury (ie, not needed) medications all the time. Insurance companies being forced to cover stuff just because a doctor prescribes it is a terrible idea.

a) Contraception isn't a luxury

b) It IS needed!

Suggesting that contraception is a luxury only available to the well-heeled puts a massive imposition on the reproductive rights of lots of women. What's a woman supposed to do if she's struggling to earn enough money to feed herself, not to mind a child, and she becomes pregnant? That's just a crappy situation for everyone involved, and is easily prevented. And don't say "she could just not have sex", because as a few of us have already said, that's really just not an option, or an effective method of birth control, or a fair condition to impose on anybody.

 

[Krynn72]

a) Contraception isn't a luxury

b) It IS needed!

Suggesting that contraception is a luxury only available to the well-heeled puts a massive imposition on the reproductive rights of lots of women. What's a woman supposed to do if she's struggling to earn enough money to feed herself, not to mind a child, and she becomes pregnant? That's just a crappy situation for everyone involved, and is easily prevented. And don't say "she could just not have sex", because as a few of us have already said, that's really just not an option, or an effective method of birth control, or a fair condition to impose on anybody.

More of the same, more of the same. Need I also reiterate my own arguments ad infinitum just to keep this discussion going? Fine, ill repeat this point again: The issue of the cost of contraception is another problem entirely, as at the moment it is indeed prohibitively expensive and it absolutely doesnt need to be. This "oh but Krynn you must hate poor people to think they shouldnt have sex" thing is a load of crap. It should be less expensive, and measures should be taken to stop pharmaceutical companies from gouging. That goes for all medications. I say again, making a insurance company pay for it is treating a symptom, not the disease.

Also, I dont know what the point was of linking to the abstinence study, its not a response to any argument I've made.

 

[KiplingsCat]

Heh, this is one of those arguments where I feel like if we kept at it for long enough, we'd both end up saying the same thing.

Anyway, this is a massive derailment...I should manage my own threads better in future

To get back on topic, Rush Limbaugh "apologised" or at least, he said that his choice of words was "not the best". Which roughly translates to "I still think you're a slut, I should just have dressed it up a little".

He reiterated that discussing "personal sexual recreation" in congress was absurd, even though Fluke never mentioned anything about having sex in her original testimony, thus again showing us how skittish people can get when women air their needs and rights in public.

 

[Krynn72]

Its also worth noting that several of his sponsors stopped supporting him and a few radio stations dropped his show entirely. Looks like people are finally getting fed up with this asshole.

 

[dfc05]

All I'm going to say here, is that my dental insurance doesn't even cover tooth-colored fillings, which is the only kind that most dentists provide nowadays since the metal ones leach mercury. I had to pay $300 out-of-pocket for 2 fillings. I think this entire "controversy" is simply a matter of medical insurance companies having the freedom to cover or not cover whatever they want, and Rush Limbaugh being Rush Limbaugh, than anything actually debatable. I don't even see why one would petition specifically for insurance coverage on birth control pills given how many other medications are not being covered.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Rush lost like 12 of his advertisers so yay, **** that guy.

More of the same, more of the same. Need I also reiterate my own arguments ad infinitum just to keep this discussion going? Fine, ill repeat this point again: The issue of the cost of contraception is another problem entirely, as at the moment it is indeed prohibitively expensive and it absolutely doesnt need to be. This "oh but Krynn you must hate poor people to think they shouldnt have sex" thing is a load of crap. It should be less expensive, and measures should be taken to stop pharmaceutical companies from gouging. That goes for all medications. I say again, making a insurance company pay for it is treating a symptom, not the disease.

Also, I dont know what the point was of linking to the abstinence study, its not a response to any argument I've made.

The problem is that you haven't actually suggested a viable solution. Pharmaceutical companies should charge less? Oh okay, good luck with that. Granted your healthcare system is ****ed beyond belief, but you don't think people should maybe look into a more achievable, if short-term solution? Meanwhile, all of the language you've employed in this thread has heavily implied that you don't think sex is anything more than a game and shouldn't be considered a basic health issue, but when people address this you back off that position and go back to talking about insurance specifically. So... I don't know man, defend your arguments or don't, but don't pretend like we're just reiterating stuff pointlessly. We're still staying this stuff because you haven't actually addressed it.

Anyway I'll try not to post any more because a) this debate is pretty dead and b) you already have enough people to quote. :v

 

[Krynn72]

Meanwhile, all of the language you've employed in this thread has heavily implied that you don't think sex is anything more than a game and shouldn't be considered a basic health issue, but when people address this you back off that position and go back to talking about insurance specifically. So... I don't know man, defend your arguments or don't, but don't pretend like we're just reiterating stuff pointlessly.

I've already defended my position on this in the first couple posts of this debate, and everyone just keeps coming back with the same counterpoint to the notion. Forgive me if I don't feel like just repeating the same response to the same question over and over. Maybe if you guys brought a little more than "Its something people do" to the discussion I could have more to work with, but none of you seem to have any substance to follow it up.

 

[ríomhaire]

All I'm going to say here, is that my dental insurance doesn't even cover tooth-colored fillings, which is the only kind that most dentists provide nowadays since the metal ones leach mercury. I had to pay $300 out-of-pocket for 2 fillings. I think this entire "controversy" is simply a matter of medical insurance companies having the freedom to cover or not cover whatever they want, and Rush Limbaugh being Rush Limbaugh, than anything actually debatable. I don't even see why one would petition specifically for insurance coverage on birth control pills given how many other medications are not being covered.

I know you're probably sick of hearing this but your healthcare system is ridiculous.

 

[Sulkdodds]

While this debate has become repetitious, I feel there are some elephants in the room.

Elephant number 1: 'the pill' is not only a contraceptive and the fact that it happens to be called one is not as significant as the practical facts of its usage. This elephant was acknowledged earlier on, but after Toaster claimed dampening periods really was a "basic health requirement", we all kind of forgot it was there, and now it's tapping its giant foot impatiently and is about to bellow "Guys! I"m right here!" AFAIK the only correct response to this argument is either to make us understand why the numerous non-contraceptive uses of the pill "dont count", or to say that insurance companies should have very broad powers to pick and choose what they like to cover on whatever basis they like, which is stupid, but fair.

Elephant number 2: elephant harder. The effects of universal contraception are a public good, and the effects of not providing it are a dangerous externality. By this I mean that the cost to society and the taxpayer of supporting and looking after unplanned children is more substantial than the cost borne by anyone for babies (certainly by the insurance company). One might even say that the government has a duty to taxpayers to ensure universal healthcare so that they don't end up paying for avoidable babbies.

Of course, in an 'insurance' system, the second elephant shouldn't matter at all. Healthcare is provided as a product by a private company looking to make a profit and it is that company's decision if they think that providing the pill is more cost-effective for them. The company chooses what it wants to cover for whatever reason and that's how it operates to please its shareholders. Regulation should be purely about making sure the conditions of their contracts are clear, that nobody is misled as to what they'll be covered for, etc etc.

But the health care bill for which Obama received a clear mandate in the 2008 elections introduces a mixed economy/regulatory framework that acknowledges the purpose of healthcare as healthcare and profit as merely the motor. Now, insurers will be forbidden from restricting care to people with pre-existing conditions because we recognise that a system which allows them to do this is not fit for purpose. Remember that this is an industry which pays its employees bonuses to strike off patients by finding 'pre-existing conditions' even they didn't know they had when they signed up. If we are going to regulate the healthcare industry so that it actually provides healthcare, it is the government's duty to lobby for measures that will cut externality costs to society, and its right to lobby for measures on an ideological basis too (i.e. 'we should provide the pill because we think it's right and positive that everyone gets a better sex life').

'Course, you should probably just get a national health service, but that would be quite a project in a country of that size. (And the whole argument was about 'religious freedom' anyway which is total bullshit)

 

[KiplingsCat]

Its also worth noting that several of his sponsors stopped supporting him and a few radio stations dropped his show entirely. Looks like people are finally getting fed up with this asshole.

Yeah that's the one positive thing I've taken from this. Sometimes what it takes for an issue to get noticed is for some idiot to just completely and irreversibly cross the line, which is what Limbaugh has done here.

What's sad is the watery republican response to these hateful comments...Romney said that Limbaugh's words were "not what I would have used" and according to Santorum, the comments were absurd, but "an entertainer can be absurd". The ONLY acceptable response by a politician wishing to represent the general populace to Limbaugh's comments would be "This is completely disgusting and I refuse to affiliate myself with it or justify it in any way", but worryingly for the women of the US that doesn't seem to be the trend.

Elephant number 2: elephant harder. The effects of universal contraception are a public good, and the effects of not providing it are a dangerous externality. By this I mean that the cost to society and the taxpayer of supporting and looking after unplanned children is more substantial than the cost borne by anyone for babies (certainly by the insurance company). One might even say that the government has a duty to taxpayers to ensure universal healthcare so that they don't end up paying for avoidable babbies.

Also this, very much this. The easiest/quickest solution to the spread of STDs and unwanted babies and tragic situations is to simply embrace the notion of universal contraception. The good of everybody having easy access to contraception far outweighs the ills of....I don't know what would be ill about that situation.

And yeah, I kind of gave up on the whole "menstruation is a load of crap and needs to be killed" line because it was just being ignored/misunderstood/forgotten about. Also, while relevant, it doesn't change the fact that the pill as a contraceptive in itself is a huge healthcare benefit.

 

[Eejit]

While this debate has become repetitious, I feel there are some elephants in the room.

Elephant number 1: 'the pill' is not only a contraceptive and the fact that it happens to be called one is not as significant as the practical facts of its usage. This elephant was acknowledged earlier on, but after Toaster claimed dampening periods really was a "basic health requirement"

And 'dampening periods' (hur hur hur) is only one of the health benefits of the contraceptive pill. It's also been shown to greatly reduce the risk of several types of cancer.
Which makes one wonder whether it's not worth providing it via insurance from a purely financial perspective anyway. The pill is incredibly cheap compared to chemotherapy, perhaps the maths would work out in favour of it.