GSO/Guilford Pols

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« The collectivist threat to Guilford County | Main | Doing the math »

Mar 03, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef0168e852d815970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An ounce of prevention:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ishmael

Reddit has an active campaign to lobby advertisers into jettisoning the gasbag.

polifrog
I'm happy we still live in a country where you have access to contraception...

There is an underlying assumption of fear, the loss of contraceptive choices, in your preamble that suggests a loose affiliation with reality.

What is the basis for your fear?

prell

Humor is lost on you isn't it, poli? Stick to trolling Lex.

Billy Jones

Kermit wasn't known for his humor-- perhaps it's common to frogs and other lower life forms.

bill

We will soon live in a country where tax payers will be forced to pay for other people's contraception. If the person also received food stamps and a housing voucher the tax payers will pick up dinner and the room as well. God bless America!!!

tk solomon

Limbaugh flushed out the big quail without getting a a wrinkle in his chaps. Good for him. It was such a dull talkng point that O'Reilly could sit on it and call out the same fornicatrix and say that goes for him, too.

Listeners, viewers and readers do not create profits. Advertisers do. Carefully worded scripts like Rush's deepens entrenchment to brand and ego attachments. That creates incumbents and a larger voter base. This way everyone keeps getting what they're getting.

Sue

Those opposed to paying for BCPs need to engage in a bit of fact finding, even if that's abhorrent to the conversation. BCPs (birth control bills), one of the most maligned forms of contraception, are used for dozens of other uses but the conversation is focused solely on "sex" (great for the media) instead of "medicine" (so boring). The example Fluke shared was exactly that - a woman who needed BCP to prevent what I think was endometreosis, a fairly common and very dangerous disorder that if left untreated, makes women both very sick (requiring surgery) and in many cases, infertile. You'd think the Handmaiden panel would have known that (oh, wait, no women there...).

So let's stop talking about BCPs as if users are (ahem) "sluts," because your daughter is going to use them or your mother or your sister et al. The real discussion is that there is a war on women and it's being played out through health care. Otherwise, Viagra and Cialis would require (1) the man is capable and WANTS to father children (and not just older or had prostate issues), (2) he is married to a fertile woman, (3) and if not, he's called a rapist in the local or national media (and submits to an invasive penile probe to discern why he needs ED meds in the first place). Ridiculous? Of course. So is the current conversation (omitting bagging your dog's poop and tossing it appropriately).

greensboro transplant

But, what are the facts? i've heard that fluke admitted that georgetown's policy covers contraceptives for therapeutic uses. this link seems to back that up.

Georgetown denies culpability for incidents like this one. “The Student Health Center and the Office of Student Insurance have consistently worked together to minimize administrative issues for students seeking insurance coverage for oral contraceptives prescribed for medical conditions,” University spokeswoman Stacy Kerr said. “Students routinely are provided coverage when a medical condition is present that necessitates the use of such contraceptives.”

In any case, the $3k figure seems to be grossly exaggerated and Fluke seems to have an agenda. no?

but then again, the facts don't feed into the stereotypes and anti-Catholic bigotry, so i expect them to be ignored by many here.

tk solomon

gt:

facts are facts

the facts don't lie

however, if a lie is to be believed it must be composed of facts.

polifrog

Prell:

Humor is lost on you isn't it, poli? Stick to trolling Lex.

It is the humor that clouds your sense of the underlying assumptions but, then, you seem easily distracted.


Troll? I invite discussion, trolls do not. If anyone is trolling it is Lex who posts on topics he refuses to discuss. I have no evidence that Lex trolls individual sites, but he clearly trolls the net with his site on which he actively denies decent. That I reply on my own site and invite decent is not trolling on my part.

polifrog

The pill requires a prescription, no? I tseems obvious that if the physician finds a medical reason for the prescription of the pill then insurance coverage should not be a problem assuming no religious objection.

As it is that distinction is not made, therefore Rush's accusation is spot on when he notes that a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist wants society to pay for her to have recreational sex is tantamount to whoring.

Ishmael

Ah the 21st century - it makes me long for the 20th, or for that matter, the 16th.

dtresident

Yes, the pill does require a scrip from a doctor. Planned Parenthoods site states that oral contraceptives costs $15-50 per month without health coverage. Another source stated the oral contraceptive Yasmine, the most expensive option, costs $60 a month. $720 annually without insurance. A condom on average, according to Planned Parenthood, costs $1 each. The $3000 number does seem like a stretch regardless of the method you choose.

polifrog

Sue, the fact that none here, but myself, address the issue of delineating between the recreational use of contraception and the medicinal use of contraception indicates a disingenuous use of the medicinal contraceptive argument.

If, for instance, it were clear to an insurance provider that contraceptives were medicinal (by a doctor's diagnosis) and covered, your concerns would be alleviated without crossing the moral bridge that results in the valid argument that women are being paid contraceptives by society to have sex.

That you do not ask for this solution, but rather expect full contraceptive coverage regardless of whether the use is medicinal or not suggests your concern is not for the medicinal side of the pill, but rather the free love whoring side that runs afoul society's moral sensibilities.

justcorbly

1. Rush is the kind of guy who sees two kind of women: Those he has to pay and those he doesn't. We ought to expect this kind of lowlife rubbish. It's indicative of the nasty vicious thing American conservatism has become that this nasty vicious hate monger sits at its center.

2. Boycotts of Rush's sponsors, while a virtuous thing, have been tried before. Maybe it's better to target one at a time, especially given all the local sponsors he has across the country. Take down a single sponsor and the others will take notice.

3. This isn't a fuss about anti-Catholic bigotry. The vast majority of Catholics ignore their church on this issue, so this is a fuss brought about by a tiny handful of male religious types who claim, as they have for 20 centuries, the right to tell women how to behave. If they want to function in the secular world -- running schools, hospitals, whatever -- then they should be prepared to live by the same secular rules as everyone else, rather than expect an entire society to bend to their radically retrograde anti-female religious opinions. If they cannnot do that, the good bishops and the church should abandon those secular activities.

James

I think the Frog is onto something. As I see it, life itself is nothing but recreational use, is it not? I mean, really, what is the freaking point of it all, if not recreation?

Which means that any drug of any kind should be eliminated from any form of insurance coverage, because, after all, the only purpose of drugs is to allow for pain-free enjoyment of our recreational lives.

If sex without pregnancy is recreational, then life itself must be devalued on the same grounds.

Except of course for the zygote and fetus. They are sacred and not recreational ... until they start playing with toys, at which point it is time to let them die.

Living with amphibian ignorance is almost too much to bear.


Jim Langer

I have heard insurance companies oftentimes WANT to offer contraceptives, even without co-pays, as it saves them costs for maternity and birth procedures. And when a woman signs her children up, especially multiple children, the premium costs-per-individual are lower, which would seem to be a loss to insurers, as well.

prell

Will someone please let polifrog know where the used condom is located? A prayer and proper burial are in store. That batch of semen has already been denied liberty. Do you insist on letting it also be denied its inherent right to just burial?

polifrog

dtresident:

Yes, the pill does require a scrip from a doctor. Planned Parenthoods site states that oral contraceptives costs $15-50 per month without health coverage. Another source stated the oral contraceptive Yasmine, the most expensive option, costs $60 a month. $720 annually without insurance. A condom on average, according to Planned Parenthood, costs $1 each. The $3000 number does seem like a stretch regardless of the method you choose.

Yes. Furthermore, the canard that the pill is equivalent to erectile dysfunction remedies is odd. It is most equivalent to the condom which, like the pill, is already universally available.

The disingenuous arguments being made here lead me to believe Ed and the gang are abusing the issue of women's health to affect political and moral change that is socially and constitutionally unacceptable.

polifrog

James:

I mean, really, what is the freaking point of it all, if not recreation?

Procreation.

Everything that follows your assumption otherwise is gibberish.

polifrog

prell:

That batch of semen has already been denied liberty. Do you insist on letting it also be denied its inherent right to just burial?


Semen is not human; it lacks the genetic material provided by an egg, hence there is no liberty to be denied.

prell

That's true poli, good work. However, shouldn't we try to find out who wasted the "missing link?" I'll have him before a magistrate and order him flogged. Freedom and liberty have been denied somewhere along the way.

polifrog

Jim Langler:

I have heard insurance companies oftentimes WANT to offer contraceptives, even without co-pays, as it saves them costs for maternity and birth procedures.


Considering the actuarial might of the insurance industry, that they have not already chosen by free will to offer contraceptives should shed light on the myth that you have heard.

Furthermore, the fact that the insurance industry is being forced by diktat to offer free contraceptives against free will should shine further light on the dimness of the myth you have heard.

polifrog

prell:

That's true poli, good work. However, shouldn't we try to find out who wasted the "missing link?" I'll have him before a magistrate and order him flogged. Freedom and liberty have been denied somewhere along the way.

There is no liberty denied anywhere except the liberty of the individual you would have flogged, but that is, at least, a step up from killing that individual in the womb.

Your progress does not go unappreciated.

Lex

I have no evidence that Lex trolls individual sites, but he clearly trolls the net with his site on which he actively denies decent.

Wow, kermit, if I'd known my blog had the power to troll the whole net, I'd've been making many other people's lives more miserable.

My blog, my rules. The subjects I'm done discussing are few in number and clearly spelled out (and "done discussing" means your place, too, although, unlike you, I don't troll). Don't like it? You've got the whole rest of the Internet to play on.

Oh, wait, you don't, because I'm trolling it. (cue sinister music)

Lex

Also, I think you meant "dissent."

Hugh

"1. Rush is the kind of guy who sees two kind of women: Those he has to pay and those he doesn't. "

Whether you believe it or not, all men pay for sex in one way or another.

Limbaugh is so rich he would save cash to outright buy it than to support it.

greensboro transplant

"Sue, the fact that none here, but myself, address the issue of delineating between the recreational use"

poli, please reread my first post. Georgetown *does* provide birth control pills for therapeutic uses.

given that fact, the only issue is whether we will reject the anti-Catholic bigotry and respect "the free exercise thereof" clause in the first amendment.

Jim Langer

Seems the evidence is inconclusive, even in Connecticut, Land of Insurance:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/

Jim Langer

I think the opposition isn't as simple as "anti-Catholic". It may be "anti-bishop and anti-Pope", as many left-leaning Catholics support the use of contraception. In their eyes, they remain "good Catholics". In matters of faith and conscience, we should not gainsay this stance, as the Constitution and good old-fashioned Yankee live and let live prudence demands.

polifrog

Lex

My blog, my rules.

How is a post directed to the internet different than a comment directed to a blog?

In either case if one denies the debate they instigate they become a troll. In your case you offer a topic to the internet, but deny debate. That is your choice, so yes, you should feel free to embrace your internet level trolling, it is your choice, but you should be mindful of the fact that that choice demotes you to the level of a troll.

In my case I honestly and politely engage in any and all debate I may start or become involved in. I do not see how this qualifies me as a troll but you are welcome to prove how it does rather than simply lob baseless accusation.

Lastly, I do appreciate the correction concerning my misspelling of "dissent". Spelling is a personal weakness and even a troll's offer to help is appreciated.


polifrog

Jim, I trust the free market results over conflicting studies, or more accurately, models that produce results that do not comport with the readily observed.

polifrog

I seems that Rush has apologized.

I won't.

James

The Frog has spoken. The purpose of life is procreation. If you are not procreating or are not capable of procreating, you must take this teachable moment to blow your brains out. It will be okay with god. Your recreational life has been declared meaningless unless you're a breeder.

So now we have the shape of a cogent plan:

1. Breeders get access to medicines so they can live long and prosper.

2. Non-breeders don't.

Also relevant: Wilmington City Council pushes for personhood for sperms and eggs.

Watch out, Mr. Frog. You're slipping to the left.

polifrog

James, your bouts with insanity don't further the conversation.

greensboro transplant

ed,

just curious, are you going to update your post and point out that the "Think Progress" sight is actually the one spreading misinformation? You don't strike me as one who wants to spread bad info.

greensboro transplant

should've read "site" instead of sight.

Andrew Brod

What facts did TP get wrong?

greensboro transplant

Andrew:

"Fluke became active on the issue “after her friend developed ovarian cysts and found that the oral contraception she needed to stop the cysts from growing was not covered under the school’s insurance.”

This is a false statement. The student insurance does cover this. See link above.

Andrew Brod

It doesn't look false to me, GT, but there's a problem with phrasing, so let's be clear.

Fluke says her friend wasn't covered. You're obviously free to be skeptical of that, because as your link notes, the university claims that Fluke's friend should have been covered. However, "should have been" isn't the same as "wasn't." Maybe what happened to the friend was an administrative error. Maybe it was a matter of implementation deviating from written policy (i.e. someone didn't follow the rules). Unless we track down the friend, there's no way you or anyone else can claim that Fluke's statement is false.

But fair enough: as a matter of policy, Georgetown appears to cover women for contraceptives for purposes other than contraception. And it's worth noting that your link also says that Georgetown is unlikely to challenge the new federal regs.

Of course this is a side issue. The specifics of Fluke's friend's story aren't at the core of this issue, in spite of what appears to be your attempt to make them so. The issue is the coverage for contraception, period. Fluke's story is an example; it's not the entire issue.

bubba

"The disingenuous arguments being made here lead me to believe Ed and the gang are abusing the issue of women's health to affect political and moral change that is socially and constitutionally unacceptable."

No!

These altruistic "heroes" and "defenders of women's rights" wouldn't do something like that, would they?

greensboro transplant

Andrew,

If the medical issue is moot then the religious freedom of Catholic institutions must be respected. that is the issue.

Are you seriously arguing that the right to rubbers trumps religious freedom?

Andrew Brod

If you read my comment again, you'll see that what I argued was that your claim about Fluke's statement being false was itself false.

Andrew Brod

But I will say that it's dumb to characterize this as being about religious freedom. No one will be forced to take contraceptives against his or her will. Religious freedom will be preserved.

bubba

"In any case, the $3k figure seems to be grossly exaggerated and Fluke seems to have an agenda. no?"

Let's consider some facts here:

"Consider that Planned Parenthood offers monthly birth control pills to 30 year old single women, even women with a $200,000 annual income, for $21 per month ($252 per year). The metropolitan DC Planned Parenthood is 2.3 miles from Georgetown, where Ms. Fluke attends classes.

At $3,000 a year, Ms. Fluke is buying twelve times as many pills as she needs. This isn't funny. This poor woman is popping an average of 12 pills a day. She needs help and fast."

And let's not even discuss the irony of a woman not being able to afford $21 per month for contraception while she's in the process of spending more than $200k for a 3+ year law school degree from Georgetown.

bubba

"No one will be forced to take contraceptives against his or her will. Religious freedom will be preserved."

You're purposely not paying attention again to the details of the issue, are you, Arnold?

polifrog

Brod:

No one will be forced to take contraceptives against his or her will. Religious freedom will be preserved.


You seem to be defending this nonsense. How do you square the fact that during a depression the administration is choosing to discriminate against the jobless by giveing free stuff to those with jobs?

greensboro transplant

"If you read my comment again, you'll see that what I argued was that your claim about Fluke's statement being false was itself false."

Wow Andrew. I really thought that you and Ed were a cut above the Daily Kos crowd. But, I'm beginning to wonder.

The statement is categorically false. Therapeutic uses are covered under the plan. Fluke testified to this in the hearing. So, this fact is not in dispute by Fluke. But you choose to perpetuate a left-wing fairy tale.

You need to admit your error and Ed needs to amend his statement. Your credibility that in on the line.


polifrog

It is interesting that when the administration (the powerful) compels the church to act against doctrine and the church (the powerless) replies "no", the left reads this as the church exerting an unfair control over others.

One can only conclude that women should no longer expect the left to come to their defense in cases of rape, as their "no" is now defined as the unfair exertion of control over another.

Andrew, the Catholic Church better defines its belief than you. If they claim that they are being forced to act against church belief by supporting the contraception purchase of another then your take is wrong.

Andrew Brod

GT, it's not about credibility. It's about logic. Because you seem to be angry about this, I'll explain it again.

If you read my comment a third time, you'll see that I noted a problem in phrasing and agreed with you that Fluke's friend's situation was, in principle, covered. So yes, it's false to say that the friend's condition wasn't covered. But that doesn't mean it's false to say that the friend received no treatment for the condition, i.e. that the friend wasn't--in the event--covered. That's the phrasing problem, and if you can't see the difference, then oh well.

After all, the link you provided said that Georgetown "denied culpability for incidents like this one." That's not the same as claiming it didn't happen.

But as I also noted, this is a side issue. If it's really important to you (as it seems to be), we'll all tell you that you're 100% right about Fluke's story. You'd win the thread, but it wouldn't alter the broader issue.

Speaking of that broader issue, i.e. religious freedom, I've explained this before. Nothing's changed since my previous comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.