First Amendment or not, Rush Limbaugh should simply not be allowed to speak anymore. The bigoted political commentator has once again succeeded in insulting women and pissing a lot of people off. This time, he has called a Georgetown law student a slut for advocating for easier access to birth control and contraceptives for women. So, clearly, all women who use birth control are sluts, Mr. Limbaugh? Then what does that make you if you've ever used a condom?
Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student, testified at an unofficial hearing last week led by Nancy Pelosi, arguing that birth control should be covered at religious institutions by health insurance. She said that students at Georgetown (which is a Jesuit University) have to pay up to $1,000 a year for birth control because campus health plans don't cover it. Rush Limbaugh, of course, took this to the extreme, saying: "She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception." That has to be one of the dumbest comments anyone has ever made, ever, and it's not even worth analyzing. Fluke, a women's health activist, said her friend lost an ovary because of the lack of contraceptive health care.
Limbaugh is on his fourth marriage, after all, so you'd think he would have learned something about women by this point. But he hasn't. He refused to issue an apology (big surprise), saying: "What I said yesterday about Susan Fluke—or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is...said she's having so much sex, she's going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, 'Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever.'"
Well, gee, you're right, Mr. Limbaugh. Because abstinence is realistic, especially in college. Most health care centers have a basket of condoms for students to use. People have sex all the time, Mr. Limbaugh, but clearly you're not getting any.
Furthermore, he said that the public should "get something" in return for paying for their contraceptives. He said that people should have to post their sex videos online so everyone can watch.
In other news, there were recently reports of a bomb threat at Limbaugh's home in Florida, but an investigation has revealed that the package mailed to his house was not dangerous. Unfortunately.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 137
there is no legal way to silence him. The only exceptions to the first amendment protections to free speech involve active calls to revolt against the government or commit crimes, and he did not do that.
Was Limbaugh's statement disgusting, and impossible to defend? Yes. Politically, it is to be hoped that independent voters may be turned off by his crude hatefulness and abandon the notion of voting Republican. Tea Party folk will mostly be okay with what he said.
He was making the point that if she really needs up to $3000 during her law school stint for birth control, she must be having an awful lot of sex. Also, there is the issue of why she cannot afford her own birth control when she is attending a $23,500+ a year college. Finally, there is the question of why it should be the school's or government's responsibility rather than her own to provide for her incidentals.
So please explain why that is "disgusting and impossible to defend" "crude hatefullness." The only thing Rush is hateful about is government running our lives for us. He's odd because he actually believes each individual should be as free as possible to pursue happiness in his or her own unique way.
and they can be bought mail order for about 25 cents - which means 4000 times a year, or eleven times a day!!!!
wow - seems a bit excessive.
and heck, time to get there, disrobe (maybe) get done, go home - 5000 times a year?
even a career is only 2040 hours a year ..... when do they study slee[p or attend classes?
and lets see - the pill, even without a prescription, the max is about 50 bucks a month - nope still pretty shy of 1000 a year.
unless of course the $1000 a year is a lie ............... no that cant be - has to be the truth - maybe not condoms - a gold plated iud perhaps? nope dont have to buy them often. diaphrams can be used more than once, so that isnt it.
so aside from the fact she is a liar.
she is being given "gifts' bought by others, to have sex .....
receiving payment, by a 3rd party so ....................
oh for gawds sakes - how can you not comprehend this!?
the woman is either a liar, or a very busy prostitute.
does ANYOne here need birth control even 1000 times a year?
johnny holmes wasnt even that prolific.
Haahahaaahahaaa!!! That's very humourous, Teczar!!!
Chris Wiegard Mar 2, 2012, 1:50pm EST
"First Amendment or not, Rush Limbaugh should simply not be allowed to speak anymore"
there is no legal way to silence him. The only exceptions to the first amendment protections to free speech involve active calls to revolt against the government or commit crimes, and he did not do that.
Was Limbaugh's statement disgusting, and impossible to defend? Yes. Politically, it is to be hoped that independent voters may be turned off by his crude hatefulness and abandon the notion of voting Republican. Tea Party folk will mostly be okay with what he said.
you are forgetting your own rights - there is a small know on the radio - usually on the right side - you change the channel.
if that is too mentally challenging for you - look for the little things that says "off" and move it to that position.
there - its all sorted out, and everyone is happy.
Have you ever actually listened to one of his shows, or even a good part of one? Or just read about him in leftist spin media?
I am seriously offended that this extremely partisaned hackjob is presented to the Gather community as news. If Ms. Teczar wants Limbaugh's First Amendment right taken away on the basis of a misquote, I would demand that hers be taken away as well. By all means let only Socialist government determine what people are allowed to say and write!
He never said that. It's leftist spin of the worst sort yet.
no - he thinks a person that has sex several thousand times a year, is pretty much a whore - dont you?
think about it - $1000 a year???????????????? see above, i made the whole calculation, with variable.
Del seems a bit clueless, well suited to being a Ditto Head. :)
the pill can be bought on line, with no insurance for 50 bucks a month or less - in fact walmart will fill a script for a generic one, for 5 bucks a month - now let me think - say take the average, 27.50 a month, times 12 months - aught carry the aught. plus aught ....... nope a long way from $1000 a year eh?
nellie - you have sex more than 12 times a day, every day, 365 days a year?
i mean sure it is possible but .............. really?
over 140 times a week?
have you contacted guinness? you may be eligible for a cash prise - or your man is - that is impressive!
my hat is off to you lady!!!
oh - and chris,
if the woman demands that other people pay for her to have sex - pretty much a prostitute! and if it only involves the cost of a condom - a cheap one.
OR ..... as i said - she is a liar - cant be trusted at all to tell the truth .
which is what rush was saying as well.
have already established that math is not your strong suit - is english a problem as well?
Must be where the "Night of Torture" comes in...psshhh...
ikr - i'm sure they're not interested in weighing in on his ignorance
I wouldn’t have put it that way, but the government has no business paying for anyone’s contraceptives. LOL I laugh at the though of me or any of my fellow college students having our sexual flings financed by the U.S. government. Back in the day, that is.
it's a double standard, no longer acceptable to many women.
Perhaps we should suggest that college girls who cannot keep their pants on should go ahead and have their tubes tied.
I hate that the media spin always says contraception is about sex. The pill does a lot of good for women with health issues... viagra has been covered for years, and its only purpose is for sex. It's a ridiculous double standard.
really - couldnt afford it?
she attends a school where the tuition (not counting room and board, fees, etc) is over $3500 a month - you can buy the pill on line, withOUT a script, or insurance for $50/month or less ...... wow - can afford it?
have the feeling most college students spill more then 50 bucks a month in beer on the bar ..... but that of course is more important?
Now if I am paying in for insurance, out of my pocket, and I need the pill...excuse me, it is my right since I am Paying for My Insurance.
I understand where this woman is coming from.
At 35 years old I needed a FULL HYSTEROCTOMY because of Overian Cancer. The only hospital in our town refused (REFUSED!!!) the procedure as it was against the "religious" code they had.
I had to go to a hospital 50 miles away for a LIFE and DEATH procedure.
What right did they have over my life because of thier moral (not mine) believes.
This is a problem when a religious stance takes over a person's right for medical care.
I remember a couple years back that evryone here was screaming about the horrors of a religious family refusing the medical care for their dying son because it was against their believes...and the child DIED because he wasn't allowed the needed procedure to safe his life.
If a woman is paying for something that could be considered a medical care, why isn't it covered?
The pill isn't always used as a contraceptive. I was given the pill to help control the bleeding from CANCER, I was going through two BOXES of pads a day, after a month of taking the pill, I was only using two and a half boxes a week.
I never used the pill as a birth control in my life...instead it was used to save my life.
Many people do Not realize that the pill is also a medical NEED, and not meaning not to get pregnant, but for a horrid ordeal called CANCER!
?"Now if I am paying in for insurance, out of my pocket, and I need the pill...excuse me, it is my right since I am Paying for My Insurance. "
you are paying the premium, that is based on the coverage you are getting!
so by not covering birth control, your insurance is at a lowere negotiated price.
you get what you pay for.
she is NOT paying for birth control insurance coverage, she is paying for the coverage she gets.
if i have an insurance that does not cover floods on my hoiuse, then it is cheaper, and floods are not covered - period
and aside from that - birth controil is incredibly inexpensive, expecially condoms, which i presume if she is smart enough to get into law school she is smart enough to demand due to std's.
which still brings us back to 1000 a year!
for condoms?????
is she buying them all (and none of the men provide them) and demanding they wear 10 or 20 of them at the same time??????
and if a person is taking a pill - no matter its normal use, as a life saving medication, there is not an insurance company in the country, that would deny help on the 30 or 50 bucks a month to have them.
you may have to argue with them a bit, and provide medical reasons why they are needed, but they will be covered, if it is a physical medical need as in the case of a cancer.
you are confusing life-saving medicine with recreational safegards.
i have a muscle disease that will kill me untreated - the med to control it, its therefore covereed, but it also can be used for rashes, and to relieve many physical discomforts - and it is always turned down in those non-life threatening situations.
so how does your ailment come to apply to this girls claim that it costs $1000 a year for birth control? (which is a lie).
contraception is a medical need
so is consuming fluids, and eating.
should our insurance policies include the cost of food and water?
amazing.
Well done.
Wow, when have you ever seen a Republican politician offer even mild criticism of Limbaugh?
Sleep Train Mattress company announced that it is withdrawing as a sponsor to Limbaugh's show.
Boehner was probably fed the same leftist spun version as you were.
he has no honor.
agreed
In this Alaska town where half the radio stations are owned by one company there is little alternative to ABC, CBS and Rush Limbaugh, so I sample that show now and then in order to avoid NPR which is about as leftist as one needs to get.
Today Rush said that the Georgetown law student has so much sex that the government needs to pay for her contraceptives. Law students looking forward to being one day in the Obama class probably ought to pay for their own birth control if they must sleep around like monkeys (what else is law school for?).
Mr. Limbaugh also pointed out that it is actually Democrats that want to limit contraceptive availability. A Missouri state legislator-a woman, has introduced a bill to ban federal support for vasectomy unless the life of the man is endangered. Limbaugh asked if that the back alley vasectomy phenomena will increase when federal support is cut off.
Limbaugh is obviously bad at ecospheric knowledge advocating fossil fuels and oil well drilling even as ocean acidification from global warming is happening faster than ever going back 65 million years. Rush is right about the President's effort to force state control over religious organizations so far as to compel them to act against their well-known religious beliefs and distribute rubbers and birth control paraphernalia through their affiliated organizations or insurers-plainly that is an anti-Christian boundary violation.
That anyone should believe that the most amusing talk-radio personality should be silenced is a sad commentary on the Stalinesque drift of corporate kow-towing, jack-booted demo-partnered corporatism seeking to make every citizen a syncopated raving mutt of global networks of power.
Rush Limbaugh is an advocate for wealth and the interests of the rich and perhaps fears tax increases more than anything else, as his hundreds of millions would be threatened with use in good works creating jobs for the poor. The rich own radio and until it is given over to citizen podcasts in some ultra-modern reformation it will continue to offer very few intelligent commentators.
American political I.Q. is not too hot these days. Even Rush Limbaugh fails to support Mitt Romney much as the President basically gets sufficient tax breaks for the rich and middle class to keep them happy while dumping debt upon youth for tomorrow. If the President is re-elected interest [payments each year on the Federal debt may approach 1 trillion dollars annually. Something needs to change.
One can't just ask as a re-election test question; 'Are you more perverted than you were four years ago, and has the President made America more perverted?' It is necessary to ask if one is unemployed if the unemployment rate has dropped enough percentages points to not wish to give someone else a try as President.
Every Republican candidate besides Paul has floated budget plans which will increase the federal deficit OVER what Obama is suggesting. Fact.
what obama does, is show an increase in the budget of 2 trillion, then reduces tht increase to one trillion, and claims he has helpe3d decrease the deficit by 10 trillion over 10 years - but that is a "cut" that is in comparison the the increase he really wants.
see - 3 plus 2 minus 1, is not less than 3 ............
that is saying obama suggested a decrease - and that is not a fact, it is a lie.
so why do you not try thinking before you mouth off.
or does that hurt?
which was,
To not have the inclusion of the birth control pills as a standard part of her insurance providers policy, the result of it's exclusion would cost her an out-of-pocket $1,000.00 to have that option included within the insurance policy for her remaining three years of college.
Regardless of which side a person is on, as to the question of birth control, abortion and/or preventive medicine, one must realize that those are no longer issues, because they have been found legal measurers for adults under the Constitution. But more to the point, they are a present day reality and apart of everyday usage by almost every female of adult age. Therefore any and all debates on those subject are for naught.
no dead wrong - she said $3000 while getting the degree, which is a 3 year degree - so $1000 a year, which is what rush said. $1000 a year .......
which at 100 bucks for 250 condoms (free shipping - want the online link?)
and there are othes that are even cheaper - (these are trojan-enz with spermacide). means 2.500 times a year -
basically 7 times a day, every day, all year long ............. so - every 3 1/2 hours ........ constantly ............. if you decide whe sleeps 8 hours a day, then it is 2 1/4 times per waking hour .......
but wait - she has to eat food, use the restroom etc - oh ...... nope no time for that - no time for classes, study etc because every 26 minutes she is having sex again - not even time to dress in between "uses".
but - lets say she meant the pill - which is not what anyone calls "protection' (which is the word she used), i mean - if a female asks a male if he brought protection - does anyone think she is talking about a pill????,
the pill can be bought on line for as little as 15 bucks a month, and up to 50 a month - so the max (again if she ie really stupid), is 600 a year for the pill - not 1000.
oh but wait - she probably still needs the condoms on top of the pill to be safe, and avoid stds ......... so at 250 per 100 - the 400 a year would buy enough condoms to have sex every other day - but of course at some point, you HAVE to think at least a SOME of the guys brought their own!!!!!!
at 50/50 - she is still having sex every single day, every week, every month, all year long - AND 1/2 the time with guys that wont even spring for their own condoms ............. and everyone else is supposed to join in to pay the additional premiums it takes to cover the additional expense .....
and if she is not a buying idiot, and gets the pill for 15 a month, that is only 180 a year - leaving enough money to buy 2050 condoms a year ........ almost 6 a day .........
or if she supplements her pill by trotting down to the local truck stop rest room - and buying one at a time from the machine - still is more than once a day, every day, all year long ........
hope that truck stop is close by! cause some days she has to go there TWICE!!!!!!
Now as for the issue:
1. Democrats made a fuss about her being denied to speak because the Republicans call five men to speak on contraceptives. They didn't have any women so the Dems invited the woman to speak. Rep. Issa said she couldn't speak because she was unqualified to speak on religious freedom. And it wasn't much ado about nothing. How do you hold a committee hearing on contraceptives without having a woman on the issue? That's like holding a hearing on Catholicism and inviting Mormons to speak on the subject.
2. She, along with other students at the school, pay for health care. She's not asking for someone to outright pay for her contraceptives; she's asking that it's included in her health care she already pays for.
3. Her testimony had nothing to do with sexual activity. She said women use contraceptives for other uses besides preventing pregnancy. Her friend she was talking about had an ovarian cyst that could be shrank using birth control pills. Because the university did not cover contraceptives in student health care plans, she lost an ovary. A medical study by the University of Florida states that over 700,000 women surveyed stated they use birth control and have never had sex. Also, 14 of all women who use contraceptives use them for purely medical purposes.
Instead of focusing on women's health, were focusing on whether Ms. Fluke has too much sex.
scoll up or down, i am quite tired of proving that her ascertians are pure lies..
You having a problem with what your daughters may have said does not translate to you or anyone else calling them sluts and prostitutes. Unless you find it acceptable for someone to call your daughters those names.
I would be outraged if I heard someone call your daughters those names and I don't know you or them. It is disrespectful and shouldn't be defended.
This has to do with women pushing their Leftist luck, and demanding to cash in on Obamacare, by demanding free birth control.
This is complete BS...and another reason why Obamacare will be repealed.
What do you call a woman who gets paid for having sex? A "Hooker". What do you call a woman who requires every person in the country to pay for her having sex? I hope I do not have to spell it out again...
If you need $1000 per year to pay for a rubber that costs 25 cents per use, then you should expect to really enjoy yourself about 10 times a day. I really do not think that Rush was wrong in what he said, most of you need to lighten up and stop pretending to be offended or just grow up.
Call her a Cunt because he can?
And as a woman, I am offended. I hate those words, they are derogatorive (sic).
A man who uses those words usually want to make sure a woman is beat down to nothing, to be a "big man"
Would you want those words to describe your daughters, sisters, wives, Mothers?
If not...then you should be offended as a man.
If it doesn't bother you, I dare you to call your mother that.
All I see is someone attempting to describe what she said. Besides you are avoiding the questions. What would you call someone who needs the tax payer to pay for her sex?
..."So what can a man say next?
Call her a Cunt because he can?
And as a woman, I am offended. I hate those words, they are derogatorive (sic).
A man who uses those words usually want to make sure a woman is beat down to nothing, to be a "big man" --
What a mouthful of ridiculous words those are...Good God...
Clark, don't forget your words, here, or their import. Who controls the speech controls the narrative...and Leftists are attempting to formulate the "Rules."
Time to decide, do you want to live free, or as the slaves they want you to live like? The natural progression of a government is to take more power from the people. The natural state of man is freedom. If man gives up that freedom, then he will deserve what he gets.
A people that fears its government is called tyranny. A government that fears its people is called freedom.
Freedom is what unites Republican voters, and your side is the side trying to restrict freedom.
“If you don't want contraception to be easily accessible, then in effect you are okay with abortion. After all, abortion politics are one of the few things that unite Republican voters. If abortion goes away, what will you do?”
No one that I have seen is attempting to restrict access. Planned Parenthood still gives contraceptives out for free and so do many other state and local governments. Even some bars. That is just to start. It took me only seconds to find countless organizations that say they provide free services of all types. Yes even some that I would love to restrict access to. Yet they are accessible.
Thus we have a problem. You claim that access is being restricted. If perception is reality, what is wrong about your or my perception? I believe the root of the problem is in your definition of the word “Accessible”. To me contraceptive would be “Accessible” if they were for sale in only one store in Australia, although we both would agree that accessibility would in fact be restricted. Clearly because contraceptives are available in almost every grocery store in the country, “Accessibility” as I define it, is not the question. Your definition sees to require others to pay for the contraceptives.
In this country we are guaranteed the rights under the constitution. These Rights are given to man by the creator. These rights are supposed to be defended by the oaths of office of the different branches of government. At some point we started to add rights, little by little, now it is healthcare and contraceptives. In a perfect world this would not be a problem. But we do not live in a perfect world, it may not seem fare, but it is reality. We are still bound by simple natural laws. Laws of physics like the laws of conservation of energy and matter, thus we have limits to our resources. Given the fact the humanity has unlimited desires, and we are bound by our natural laws, we then are also bound by economic laws, such as the law of supply and demand. My point in all of this is that we have limited resources and unlimited desires and we as a people cannot afford most of the additional so called rights that we have been creating. If it were only condoms, clearly it would not be a problem. But when you have social security, education, FDA, Energy and what seems to be an infinite list of government departments granting, and administrating what at one time was our freedom (http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/E.shtml), are we really free?
If you grant the right to condoms for all, you require all of us to pay for it. Thus we all are enslaved just a little, just to give some people to have sex. If we are willing to pay for a simple condom, what will we not pay for. Simply nothing. We the people will be on the hook to pay for everything. All the producers will pay for those who don’t want to. This template has been tried and has failed every time. Look at Greece for instance. A free decentralized capitalistic republic has never failed. Although ours is failing now, because we are not capitalistic, free or decentralized. We are a Republic with centralized authority at the federal executive level and we are socialistic in nature.
My point is that we have been willing to trade our freedom for the security of simple things like condoms, soon we will be slaves to the debt that comes with it and it will be our choice. Freedom or Slavery?
But the Republican Party is all itchy to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Explain?
again your idea of facts are 6 clydesdales short of a budwieser team.
they are against funding pp to do abortions - shich - OH-what-a-co-inkydink, just happens to be the same amount as the tax dollars they receive!
and of course there is that thing about helping pimps force girls as young as 12, that were kidnapped in other countries, into prostitution, and get free abortions and std testing and treatments.
but hey - i suppose you would defend that, since the 12 year old has the right to choose between having sex or being killed right?
i mean really - it IS a choice ...........................
....................................................................................................
Of course Limbaugh does not mean it, he is only saying it because he is worried about losing sponsors, but my challenge stands. If he can do it, so can you. :)
i agree, it probably wasa crass way of stating the truth - but a differnt analogy would still have the same meaning, just not sound so harsh!
so i challenge YOU - how does a youg girl have sex between 1,000 to 10,000 times a year (depending on how stupid she is in her purchases), and NOT be incredibly promiscuous (or a complete liar)?
and how is it justified to demand that everyone else pay for her personal activities, by including a non-medical activity, which will raise all their premiums?
you DO understand basic math, and that all costs are passed on to the entire group of consumers right? (there is no 'free')
or maybe you CAN have sex 12 times a day every day, 365 days a year for 3 years.
if so - I stand and applaud you sir - you have done more than johhny holmes, ron jeremy, and wilt chamberlain combined!
but i will not shake your hand ......... cause IF that is true, gawd knows where that hand has been!
please stop being an idiot, Del, even if it is your natural state of existence. Ms. Fluke never said that she had sex 1000 times per year. In fact, ms. Fluke never said that she had sex even ONCE per year. Rush made that up, and you accepted it as God's Truth.
This is not about promiscuity, it is about health insurance. You want it to be about what it is not about.
And getting the pill online? How often has it been recommended not to buy drugs online, because you don't know the quality of what you are getting - if they are older, expired drugs.
His stance on the government paying for it or not is not the problem for me. It's the language he used. And it's only the language he apologized for using. Six sponsors pulled out - and at least one refuses to go back even though he has issued that apology. What he said about her parents is hateful. Not to mention slanderous. If your twenty some year old daughter chose to use birth control to either prevent pregnancy or for a medical condition, would you think you had failed as a parent?
By the way - for all those arguing about the cost of education and health insurance - my husband, back when he was married to his first (and only other) wife, had two young sons at the time - they were dirt poor. They lived in NY city and he went to Columbia on the G.I. stuff that paid for it because he served in the Korean war. As he was about to graduate, he got an offer from Hopkins for his graduate work. They covered his studies for his Ph.D. - and offered housing help. He was an assistant teacher during his time there, and also at Loyola. In addition, he worked part time at the college library. His wife worked, too. She had insurance from her job that covered only her. When their son broke his leg, it was an out of pocket expense for them. So yes, you can go to a graduate school that costs a ton of money and yet still not be able to afford health care.
I would think that I had failed as a parent if my daughter was unmarried and having sex. I would think that I had failed, if my daughter went before the country and demanded toothpaste, condoms, birth control, or a prescription vibrating bed as a right! It is not a Right and you cannot make others pay for it if it is against our religious freedom.
The pill is not viagra - it's not something you take only when you are having sex. The pill is taken every day of the year, once a day. It doesn't mean you are having sex every day of the year, one or more times a day.
Let's get away from unmarried girls for a bit - what of a married couple who do not want another baby right after having one? Who want to wait four or five years? Who cannot afford ten kids? Yet if contraception is not covered under an insurance plan, and babies are born, and end up suffering who will pay in the long run? Oh, sure, advise a married couple to abstain if they don't want more kids. They might as well join a religious order in that case.
If Miss Fluke or her friends really need a prescription that is going to save her life, then that is between her and her insurance company. It may be harsh but you might have to find a different job, if you work for the church and if you require a drug that is prohibited by that church.
Some of those types of oral contraceptives, do not stop the egg from being fertilized. The only trigger the body to reject the fertilized egg. Thus, to me is an abortion. If you force me to pay for it, then that death is on my conscience. Thus you cannot force me to do that, any more than you could force someone who is Jewish, to eat non kosher. It is a sin.
Another point. The rising cost of health care, is partly caused by everyone demanding more and more out of the policy. That is supply and demand. I would personally like to have a policy that pays for unexpected or emergency procedures, normal everyday procedures and products can be found for less if you are allowed to shop around. If the insurance company is paying for it, you don’t shop and they just pay for the extra expense. Most policies these days are nothing more than pay for it all pre-paid services. The whole insurance aspect is being lost. I would rather pay for my eye exam, yearly, teeth cleaning out of pocket, because I believe that I can get those services for less if I cut the so called insurance middleman(broker) out of the money chain. Thus I would like to use insurance for what it was intended. Now we are on the path to implement government run healthcare and your policy is being paid by me. Not only is it morally wrong from some aspects, but it will bankrupt this country even faster.
Did you know that the most recent bail out of Greece gave the equivalent of $15,000, to every man, woman and child. Where is that money coming from? And that is just one more bandaid and does not fix the problems like socialized healthcare that broke them in the first place. Our debt is far worse and when ours goes, the whole planet is not big enough to bail us out. The solution is simple, we must at this point cut government back to about half of the current budget and start to make payments on the debt. Every politician that fails to do this is driving us off the cliff.
The sooner we all realize that government makes a good safety net, but they do not supply services that are not one size fits all and they never do much that is efficient, except printing money and making war. We currently are spending money that we will not have to pay back, but someone will and your children and grand children will be paying that debt for us. That is called slavery and we have the power to stop it.
I do believe the government spends more than it needs to on lots of little things - which add up in the long run to big bucks. Anything from governors using state helicopters to go to a kid's baseball game to toilet seats that costs over a hundred bucks a pop needs to be eliminated. Sometimes you start small. I agree that anyone who is genuinely dead needs to be taken off social security payrolls.
It's easy to say if you want a policy that covers this and that then you pay for it - if one has the means to pay for it. Many of us don't. Right now my son needs to see a dentist for a tooth. I am scraping up my spare change to get him there. Plus walking a dog for twenty dollars an hour - something I should not be doing. Paul also does this between classes. He has tried to find part time work but there's nothing here for a nineteen year old boy without a car or means of getting somewhere. Where is goes to college is a fifteen minute walk from our home. And he got scholarships for that.
I seethe when I see all the money being spent to promote certain people for president, knowing how much real good that money could do, and I don't mean by pimping any one of them - republican or democrat - in office. We have cousins - my husband does, anyway - who live in France. Like us, they struggle with bills and stuff. But the one thing they've never had to worry about? Their health care. I have friends in Canada - which has socialized health care and is not full of debt like we are. What are they doing that works?
In the meantime you have states diverting money meant for one thing in to something else and saying - look, we reduced the debt here! when it's just paper shuffling.
I know raising taxes on the top two or three percent on the wealth tree won't solve the national debt. But it won't hurt it, either. Cutting out real waste, such as those overcharged items bought by the government will help. Bit by bit we can chip away. But to strip away some programs and all and leave people hanging?
My argument about those Bush tax cuts has always been - if they worked - they've been in place all this time - why aren't those businesses and corporations getting the big breaks hiring more? Why hasn't it worked yet? How long have they been in effect?
We are human and we are still bound by earthly limitations (see my comments above for more info “Clark V Mar 3, 2012, 12:53pm EST“)
With all of that said, why did we decide to reinvent the wheel, engineering a whole new healthcare system? Why did we not just fix the existing system?
The reason GM goes through the process, building a car, testing, reengineering only the flaws, is to reduce the risk. Any time you change something, there is significant risk that you will inadvertently change something that will have unintended consequences. Who would have thought that a simple change to an “O” ring in a solid rocket booster would result in the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger? No one or not enough that they thought the shuttle was unsafe. Yet we scrapped the whole health care system. What unintended risks will turn into a disaster with our new system? Do you think that there will not be a cost associated with those failures? There will be failures, but my bet is that you will not hear much about them, because it is in the government’s best interest to not report them. They will be managed, just like everything else. When was the last time you were told about the actual success rate of Social Security, Medicare, or the department of education? You will not. They do not know what success is. To them, existing is success. Growth is success. Even if that means that the rest of us are enslaved in the process. If you divide the national debt among the tax payers, they will pay $133,000.00. Can you afford it? That is the good news, if you add the unfunded liabilities like Social Security, Medicare, and the Prescription Drug Program, each tax payer will be charged over $1,133,000.00. You have already told me that you cannot afford it. I cannot either. Someone is going to pay! Who?
But I digress a bit. The real question is why did they not rebuild Medicare? The risk, cost, and quality would have been far better, because the system is up and running now. Not perfect, but working. The fact is that fixing Medicare was too small. Politics run on two things money and power. Our leaders wanted to expand government not fix it. The extra power and money generated by fixing Medicare was marginal at best. That system is in place, they needed more. The government needed to expand itself and it chose to essentially tax 1/5 of the US economy and if they can control your body in the process, then they have the ability to tax you even more in the future. Obama Care was the solution they chose. Given a chance, they will bleed the tax payer until life stops, if we let them.
The fact is the free market and private organizations have systems and abilities to help you far better than any federal government.
The natural progression of a government is toward tyranny.
We as humans all have failing health to one degree or another, the question is do you want to be sick and free, or sick and enslaved? Are you willing to sacrifice the freedom you have enjoyed, so that your children and future generations will not have the same freedom? For what?
Your choice!
Take 10 years off my life, take 20 years off my life, and just let my children have the freedom that I have had.
Because death is a natural quonsiquence of life, I would prefer to live free or not at all. You have heard the phrase “Live free or die”? Our founding fathers knew what would happen if we traided our freedom for security. We would only get the word of a politition as a garrontee, no real security would result and we would be a fool for doing so.
I will pray for your health and I hope you find it.
I am well aware that now is not the time to "get something back" - at the same time, I resent that "something" was taken for years that didn't benefit me at all. One happy moment was under Clinton, when he signed whatever it was that allowed my husband, then 65, to retire with his full social security benefits even while working a full time, contractual job. Until that occurred, we would have lost something like one out of every three dollars. This enabled us for a while to stay steady. Both my kids got social security because they were under 18 when John "retired" - Paul was only 5 at the time and my daughter was 13. Five years later, when she was taken off, I was allowed on while the mother of an under 16 year old. When my son turned 16, I was taken off, but my son and husband's amount went up. Then, two years later, when Paul turned 18, that was the end of his social security. Ever since then it's been a struggle, because it seems like suddenly all the health problems have hit us all, in addition to John losing his prescription coverage. We lost nearly a thousand a month coming in, and have an additional five hundred plus going out now. Some months I play "eeny meeny minie moe" on which prescription to get hubby and when. When I can't get the eyedrops, his vision begins to decline, such as now - and they are talking surgery at this point. Yet without the oxycontin he literally can not get out of bed each day.
There's a good chance that my daughter could benefit from oral contraceptives because of hormonal problems. Yet we can't afford them. I can barely afford - can't really - what my husband needs. I work from home, writing internet articles to bring in extra income - basically, under the table - because we can't afford to be taxed on it. I've done the research on a lot of this because I write on just about every subject. I'm not fond of Obama - don't get me wrong. I would have preferred Hillary Clinton. I also hope at some point our Governor, who has managed to work miracles here, will go for the democrat nomination.
The few republicans who I think might have made a difference, without getting in to all this other stuff, are Jon Huntsman and possibly Chris Christie.
And I continue to believe, if these practices pushed by the Republicans worked, they would have worked under Bush and Cheney - but they didn't. Obama inherited a massive debt, and other massive problems.
And possibly some will try to earn money in other countries - but aren't they doing that now, too?
I don't consider socialist medical care living under slavery. I consider it getting something for what we've contributed. Otherwise, stop taxing us. That one third taken from my husband's paycheck would cover his prescriptions each month.
I agree that Clinton would have been better, if her husband was an indication of how she would govern.
Remember, Bush has 911 and the .com bust as recessionary events. He did cut taxes and sent out rebate checks, those did more to stimulate the economy as it gave you back what you had paid in and gave you the power to decide how to spend your own money. During those recessionary events, unemployment never got as high as it has now. Thus I would say that cutting taxes did work and Obama has chosen to not learn from history in the 1920's, 1980's and early 2000's. The recession could have been over.
Obama did inherit a large debt, but he has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 8 years. To make matters worse, they are printing money. That is an additional tax on everything you buy. That is why food and gold prices are going up for instance. To be honest, I think that Bush did a bit of that too.
At your level of income, a republican or democrat in office, may not make much difference to your bottom line. I know that you guys have limitations because of health and that is why we do and will always have safety nets to give you assistance. My problem is that if you found some other way of earning income that allowed you to save money and start to get ahead, do you want a government that rewords you or encourages you to stay in the safety of the net. Speaking in generalities, a conservative like Santorum or Gingrich would want to scale back the government so that you can keep more of what you earn. The liberal democrats would like you to believe that you can’t make it without them. They are willing to help you, but there is a hidden cost associated with that help. They want your freedom, and yes socialized medicine. Today, my wife wanted to get a checkup and the scheduler said that she can come in, in March,…….2013. Is this a precursor as to what is going to happen?
I think you know, realistically, that not all democrats are republican haters and vice versa. Whether or not it's the moderate republicans who I like - they are still republicans. And I know there have been some good ones in the past, just like there have been some good democrats. And I've already said Obama is not my favorite for president - yet so far I haven't found anyone who personally appeals more to me. I'm just kind of figuring another four years and then let's see what new and refreshing candidates on both sides we see.
I do believe more women are favoring Obama now than ever because of what they are hearing from the GOP contenders. And I will repeat once more I am not thrilled with Obama, either. You know, when I saw the governor of Maryland on the news a few nights ago, and look at all he has done for our state - I wondered - why is this man not in the running for a higher office?
Can I ask you, in the meantime, your views on Jon Huntsman and Chris Christie?
I appreciate, once again, that you are not devaluing me as a person in this conversation. I wish I could say the same of other Gather members. A few, like Char, have been wonderful. And it goes both ways. I do not like the way some of the liberal Gather members treat the conservatives. If one is offended by something the worse thing to do is toss the same back.
But I will check out his voting record this week.
Quotes from Santorum on birth control:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/santorum-contraception/2012/02/16/id/429647
Voting record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
The voting record did show him being very pro life and he did vote for the prescription drug program. Thus in this case, if Miss Fluke or her friend was on Medicare, and needed the pill Santorum’s vote might have helped to get them the assistance that they need.
It is hard for me to evaluate Christie as he is the governor of a different state. It seems like he has done quite a bit to turn the state around financially and for that I would like him. Until he runs for something bigger, I may not put much time into learning much about him. Huntsman did not impress me as he seemed to run to gather up independents, while ignoring the base. The Republican party has run Dole and McCain the same way and in the end they all failed. Huntsman in my mind took himself out of the race from the start. He might have been a good president.
It sounds like you do and have always wanted to be self sufficient. For that you deserve praise. The safety net is there to help those who fall, good job for using it as it was intended. I believe that most republicans would agree that lower taxes would help in your case to let you keep what you earn. I say most, because I have seen a few that like the power to spend your money for you.
And as a side note - I don't think Obama has been gawdawful on everything. I did admire the way he used the special forces to take down Osama - not to mention it was good timing. I just haven't seen things get extreeeeeemely better - the way he seemed to promise they would. Politicians will promise the moon in many cases (a la Gingrich...lol) but sometimes all you get is a bit of green cheese....
Good talking to you.