Slut!!!

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:58 pm

That fat Oxycontin addled wind bag Rush Limbaugh said it. What's most shocking though is I kind of agree with him. Why should I as a taxpayer have to pay for womens birth control? I can see if it's for medical reasons as in some cases it is but for recreational sex? Let the boyfriend pay for it, the girls parents. Not taxpayers, we have enough on our plates as it is.

U.S. News - Despite furor, Limbaugh refuses to back down on criticism of Sandra Fluke

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:40 pm

Maybe I don't understand how this works, but I believe she wanted it included in her health insurance, not given away free by the government. Does the government make up the difference? I honestly don't know. I find it hard to believe that birth control pills cost that much money though...

Just found this:

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school."

But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills—the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen—for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

Hmmm...

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:45 pm

Pig Boy apologized for using the words he did. I couldn't care less, he is what he is. Fluke was being misleading I agree stating an extreme example if it's even truthful at all. Whether or not these girls choose to have sex or not is no business of mine, until it results in all of us paying more either in the form of insurance costs or taxes. It falls into the realm on personal responsibility to me, with the exception of medical need.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:41 pm

I'd rather my taxes go toward contraceptives than more children on welfare.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:40 am

In Canada we have a really comprehensive basic health coverage and it does not include contraceptives. We do, however, have many clinics that offer free contraceptives to teens who can't afford to pay for it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:08 am

And Rush Limbaugh is an ******* making a living off of finding out how far he can go before he gets sued or shamed out of existence. Wish he'd just gotten his five minutes of fame.

I had a teacher who rather pushed Limbaugh on the class as a voice of the future. That was a long time ago though. And that teacher never made it as a politician... though he tried. As did my principle, who subsequently was called to account (by me) for campaigning in the highschool without giving other candidates the opportunity to equally distribute.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:45 am

From what I can gather from rather cursory reading, Ms Fluke was apparently saying the $3000 dollars for BC pills was over the course of her time at Georgetown, which is a Catholic institution whose health coverage doesn't include Satan's tool otherwise known as contraceptives. It's been a long time bone of contention for many of the female student body there since they all aren't Catholic and/or don't trust the fallible practice of the rhythm method.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:01 pm

Scrat;1386504 wrote: That fat Oxycontin addled wind bag Rush Limbaugh said it. What's most shocking though is I kind of agree with him. Why should I as a taxpayer have to pay for womens birth control? I can see if it's for medical reasons as in some cases it is but for recreational sex? Let the boyfriend pay for it, the girls parents. Not taxpayers, we have enough on our plates as it is.

U.S. News - Despite furor, Limbaugh refuses to back down on criticism of Sandra Fluke

Maybe this might explain it a bit.

You seem to be under the impression, like limbaugh, that that is the only reason people use the contraceptive pill is when they are about to have sex and allowing it encourages promiscuity. For recreational sex there are always condoms given the side effects the pill can have (depression etc etc) taking it is a bit more serious than taking an aspirin. You might believe sex should only be for the purpose of procreation but you have no right to impose such a twisted view on anyone else. This isn't just about single women it extends to married women as well. Why are Americans so against government interference yet are happy to have the church dictate to them when and how big their families are going to be and prevent women from having a choice about contraception and abortion. How can you justify giving an employer the right to interfere in someone private life? It's one of the reasons universal healthcare is better - employers have no right to know anyone's medical history, it's between them and their doctor.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:26 pm

Viagra and cyalus is subsidised.....apparently it's a medical issue . But contraception basically isn't? WOW!!!

Uses of birth control pill.

Effective, relatively easy-to-use birth control (not messy, discrete)

Decreased risk of ovarian or endometrial cancer (cancer of the lining of the uterus)

Lighter menstrual bleeding (which decreases the risk of anemia)

Less menstrual pain

Regular menstrual cycles.

Acne

Premenstrual dysphoric disorder, also known as PMDD

Heavy menstrual bleeding

Painful menstrual periods

Irregular menstrual periods

Endometriosis

Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (for birth control pills that are not approved for this reason)

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)

Perimenopause

Hirsutism (undesired body or facial hair growth).

What does Viagra cure or help?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:52 pm

Man problems, key word being man.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:00 am

It seems to me that if a prescription is written by a doctor, if you have prescription coverage it covers it. If it's over the counter then it's not covered. Of course I say that as a Canadian who has basic coverage provided and no extended medical provided by an employer. So no prescription coverage... except I maintain a part-time job at a pharmacy where I don't have to pay dispensary fees so my last prescription cost me $2.10

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:07 am

contraception is free here for all teens, heavily subsidised for welfare recipiants, and on prescription you just get the generic brand . $5 for three or four months worth.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:14 am

Scrat;1386504 wrote: That fat Oxycontin addled wind bag Rush Limbaugh said it. What's most shocking though is I kind of agree with him. Why should I as a taxpayer have to pay for womens birth control? I can see if it's for medical reasons as in some cases it is but for recreational sex? Let the boyfriend pay for it, the girls parents. Not taxpayers, we have enough on our plates as it is.

U.S. News - Despite furor, Limbaugh refuses to back down on criticism of Sandra Fluke

I think you just answered that question yourself anyway.

You just called yourself a taxpayer .......yes?

that means you are apart of a community or society .........yes?

what do you think your society would look like or how it would cope with no affordable contraception? Your taxes are there to look after everyone in your society ...not just where you want it to go .

I have to admit that I'm shocked that a so called civilised western country is still debating this kind of thing in the year 2012. I'm sort of embarrassed for you .

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:23 am

What i don't understand is do these guys not have wives or girlfriends who can explain it to them or is sex such a taboo subject they don;t talk to each other about it.