Please tell me how Rush Limbaugh is still relevant in 2012. - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-2012, 01:28 PM   #21
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Blaen, please post my entire quote in regard to rape on your signature. This way you won't be a hopeless ---- who pruned my comment for your benefit in a sad attempt to belittle me. I ----ed your mother.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:30 PM   #22
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Said institution does provide coverage for that sort of treatment.

Finasteride is covered by their policy.
This sounds to me like a contractual issue. Why can't the junior attorney seem to figure this out? If her friends signed a contract providing this coverage and it's denied, they're looking at a breach-of-contract issue.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:30 PM   #23
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,293
Total Cats: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Show me where that was said by me. Anywhere.



Show me where that was said by me. Anywhere.

I've been careful to keep my arguments within medical necessity, and have been steadfastly referring to medical necessity prescriptions.

And as I said, Finasteride is covered by their treatment. But any kind of birth control to help prevent ovarian cancer isn't? What?
So then tell me. You approve of them getting birth control for medical reasons unrelated to preventing birth ONLY?
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:31 PM   #24
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
So you have now framed this argument into sections of her speech that specifically support your position, and all others are irrelevant? Awesome.


I answered every one of your dumb arguments. There is nothing ridiculous about you and the socialist northerenrs framing this a "womyn's rights, as it applies to coincidental reproductive/non-reproductive healthcare."
So, the university covers Finasteride and similar treatments for help with prostate cancer and enlarged prostate. See http://health.nytimes.com/health/gui...dications.html for a full list of all of which they cover, actually.

Why won't they cover birth control for women at risk for Ovarian Cancer then, Hustler?
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:34 PM   #25
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,293
Total Cats: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
So, the university covers Finasteride and similar treatments for help with prostate cancer and enlarged prostate. See http://health.nytimes.com/health/gui...dications.html for a full list of all of which they cover, actually.

Why won't they cover birth control for women at risk for Ovarian Cancer then, Hustler?
I'll take this one:

It's because then every female who wants birth control will suddenly be at risk for Ovarian Cancer.

The school is NOT against drugs that prevent prostate cancer.
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:34 PM   #26
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun View Post
So then tell me. You approve of them getting birth control for medical reasons unrelated to preventing birth ONLY?
Oh no, give 'em birth control for whatever little reason they want IMO.

But when it comes to a situation like this, it is completely insane that anyone can deny someone coverage of a medication that they provably medically need.

That's where I'm arguing from right now, FRT. Hustler and I can go back and forth on the "But Birth Control being required to be provided is bad!" all day long...

But that's not where I'm arguing from right now. I'm arguing from the "Okay, they provide medications to help prevent prostate cancer. Now why the ---- won't they provide medications to help prevent ovarian cancer?" position right now.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:34 PM   #27
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
So, the university covers Finasteride and similar treatments for help with prostate cancer and enlarged prostate. See http://health.nytimes.com/health/gui...dications.html for a full list of all of which they cover, actually.

Why won't they cover birth control for women at risk for Ovarian Cancer then, Hustler?
Because she is a woman and sex is for men. You cannot rape your wife because you own her.

Again, what is in the contract she signed for health coverage?
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:38 PM   #28
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Oh no, give 'em birth control for whatever little reason they want IMO.

But when it comes to a situation like this, it is completely insane that anyone can deny someone coverage of a medication that they provably medically need.

That's where I'm arguing from right now, FRT. Hustler and I can go back and forth on the "But Birth Control being required to be provided is bad!" all day long...

But that's not where I'm arguing from right now. I'm arguing from the "Okay, they provide medications to help prevent prostate cancer. Now why the ---- won't they provide medications to help prevent ovarian cancer?" position right now.
Actually, we can't. We agree on most issues in this thread, differ on the implementation. I think it should be provided for everyone, because it makes sense for the insurer and the policy holder. However, we differ in opinion when it comes to regulation. I believe every person should be able to select the coverages they want, it appears to me that you believe all schools and businesses MUST provide coverage for everything under the sun. I'd rather take my money somewhere else than force a private sector company to provide something against their will because it will probably cost more.

I hate religion, I think it's totally stupid because it makes no sense to me at all. However I realize its a difference in perspective, but I also realize that religious institutions should not be required to provide coverages for things they don't believe in because I don't want someone forcing me to pay for something I don't believe in.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:38 PM   #29
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
Because she is a woman and sex is for men. You cannot rape your wife because you own her.

Again, what is in the contract she signed for health coverage?
If you read her testimony, you'd have realized that the insurance company and the university are hiding behind the clause in which they do not have to provide birth control Hustler. That's the entire argument currently. The "religious" clause is allowing insurance companies and universities to deny someone who needs birth control even if it is medically necessary for them to have it. That's the issue!

Sidenote: I'm going to make my current arguing stance crystal clear. I'm *absolutely not* currently arguing for birth control to prevent birth right now. I'm arguing for birth control as a medical necessity (I.e., those with PCS) right now.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:40 PM   #30
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
Actually, we can't. We agree on most issues in this thread, differ on the implementation. I think it should be provided for everyone, because it makes sense for the insurer and the policy holder. However, we differ in opinion when it comes to regulation. I believe every person should be able to select the coverages they want, it appears to me that you believe all schools and businesses MUST provide coverage for everything under the sun. I'd rather take my money somewhere else than force a private sector company to provide something against their will because it will probably cost more.

I hate religion, I think it's totally stupid because it makes no sense to me at all. However I realize its a difference in perspective, but I also realize that religious institutions should not be required to provide coverages for things they don't believe in because I don't want someone forcing me to pay for something I don't believe in.
I really don't have much of an issue with what you've said.

I'd be 100% for it with one critical addition: Someone is allowed to select what they want on their insurance plan regardless of what their employer has to say on the topic. I'm all on board with that.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:43 PM   #31
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
If you read her testimony, you'd have realized that the insurance company and the university are hiding behind the clause in which they do not have to provide birth control Hustler. That's the entire argument currently. The "religious" clause is allowing insurance companies and universities to deny someone who needs birth control even if it is medically necessary for them to have it. That's the issue!
Again, we need to look at the contract. If there is a list of drugs they won't provide, she's in trouble and rightfully so because she did not pay for coverage.

Let me give you an awesome tip:
Stop referring to this as "birth-control" and start referring to it as "multi-purpose pharmaceuticals" because that way, you might win an argument or two.

I have a life insurance policy. It specifically does not cover death on the racetrack. If I die on the track, my GF does not expect to receive the benefits because it's barred on my policy. If I could get a health-insurance policy that didn't allow for coverage for AIDS and it saved me money I would get it...because I'm not bare-backing with poz-rods. Well, not often.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:44 PM   #32
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
I really don't have much of an issue with what you've said.

I'd be 100% for it with one critical addition: Someone is allowed to select what they want on their insurance plan regardless of what their employer has to say on the topic. I'm all on board with that.
Yes, this is behavioral. If she doesn't like the terms of coverage or if those coverages were misrepresented, this is a contract law case and she should take her money to another provider.


Be careful my friend, your quote above is in stark contrast to what your socialist, liberal, northerner friends believe and want to enforce upon America.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:46 PM   #33
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago (Over two miles from Wrigley Field. Fuck the Cubs. Fuck them in their smarmy goat-hole.)
Posts: 26,315
Total Cats: 1,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s
Please tell me how Rush Limbaugh is still relevant in 2012.
His show is very profitable. That's good for my business, and thus, relevant to my interests.

If you believe that Rush or his program is supposed to have any greater socio-political importance than, say, American Idol, well, sorry.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:48 PM   #34
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
Again, we need to look at the contract. If there is a list of drugs they won't provide, she's in trouble and rightfully so because she did not pay for coverage.

Let me give you an awesome tip:
Stop referring to this as "birth-control" and start referring to it as "multi-purpose pharmaceuticals" because that way, you might win an argument or two.
Finasteride is a hair growth medication that is also used as a way to help with enlarged prostates. I would have absolutely zero qualms in calling it a hair growth medication prescribed to help with prostate cancer.

Saying "multi-purpose pharmaceuticals" is nothing but a weasel word when the entire debate rages around "birth control". I'm not some goddamn politically correct robot who is going to tweak what I say because it offends someone (You know who you are, lulz) or because it helps an argument in image but not substance.

You are making an argument from semantics that has little to no meaningful impact on the actual discussion.

Quote:
I have a life insurance policy. It specifically does not cover death on the racetrack. If I die on the track, my GF does not expect to receive the benefits because it's barred on my policy. If I could get a health-insurance policy that didn't allow for coverage for AIDS and it saved me money I would get it...because I'm not bare-backing with poz-rods. Well, not often.
I don't disagree with the sentiments here.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:49 PM   #35
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

I am really impressed with myself by incorporating the notion that a woman can consciously solicit rape, and someone ran with it. lol
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:53 PM   #36
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Finasteride is a hair growth medication that is also used as a way to help with enlarged prostates. I would have absolutely zero qualms in calling it a hair growth medication prescribed to help with prostate cancer.

Saying "multi-purpose pharmaceuticals" is nothing but a weasel word when the entire debate rages around "birth control". I'm not some goddamn politically correct robot who is going to tweak what I say because it offends someone (You know who you are, lulz) or because it helps an argument in image but not substance.

You are making an argument from semantics that has little to no meaningful impact on the actual discussion.
Semantics win court cases. If you want to keep calling it birth-control, you're going to keep losing against churches and Santorum. Fram the argument around contract provisions, not around something SCOTUS can debate 5-years from now.

On a related note, my GF has provisions on her health insurance policy which she is required to buy from her university for hair-plugs.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 01:54 PM   #37
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
Yes, this is behavioral. If she doesn't like the terms of coverage or if those coverages were misrepresented, this is a contract law case and she should take her money to another provider.
What if the coverages were misrepresented, but the university and insurance company are hiding behind the clause that has been pointed out several times?

The clause *does* make it "legal"-ish in that case, and I would imagine it's freaking hard to get a University to change providers when it's what they want.

Quote:
Be careful my friend, your quote above is in stark contrast to what your socialist, liberal, northerner friends believe and want to enforce upon America.
The hilarity of this statement only comes when you realize I and most of the people where I am from are moderate right in leaning, Hustly.

The big problem I, and the people I have talked to in depth on the subject, have is that the Right extremists make our outies become innies from the retardedness. When the Right has people like Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, or Santorum, it pushes us steadily leftward - even though the left is almost as bad in my eyes. But at least the Left doesn't have Santorum.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 02:01 PM   #38
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
What if the coverages were misrepresented, but the university and insurance company are hiding behind the clause that has been pointed out several times?
Then the contract should be executed consistent with its representation at the time of signing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The clause *does* make it "legal"-ish in that case, and I would imagine it's freaking hard to get a University to change providers when it's what they want.
I imagine so, but requiring students to buy health coverage sucks and purchasing it should be a choice. "Should" also means you are free to change universities if the healthcare options are inconsistent with your desires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The hilarity of this statement only comes when you realize I and most of the people I am from are moderate right in leaning, Hustly.
lol, no you're not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The big problem I, and the people I have talked to in depth on the subject, have is that the Right extremists make our outies become innies from the retardedness. When the Right has people like Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, or Santorum, it pushes us steadily leftward - even though the left is almost as bad in my eyes. But at least the Left doesn't have Santorum.
I agree with this. It's tough for me to knowingly fall into the the class of people who "believe they are better than the candidates, and too good and intellectual to vote for them!" However, this is truly the case, I have too much dignity to vote for any of these nominees. Well, aside from Romney...I'll vote for him since Kid Rock is going to perform at his rally.

I keep waiting for the new GOP candidate to pop out of a cake somewhere and say "Surprise!!! You're on candid camera" after all the ---- we've seen. Somehow, Herman Cain may have been the best option, if foreign policy is not your thing.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 02:25 PM   #39
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
Then the contract should be executed consistent with its representation at the time of signing.
But it's not. Which is the problem.

Quote:
I imagine so, but requiring students to buy health coverage sucks and purchasing it should be a choice. "Should" also means you are free to change universities if the healthcare options are inconsistent with your desires.
Changing universities is not anywhere near as easy as changing employment, Hustly.

As an example, I personally have exactly two options for my graduate degree. They are across my state from each other. Moving across the state because a university won't provide what they promised me is bullshit.

If you said this about employers, I'd have a much smaller issue (We talked about it in the above post), but universities aren't the same.

Quote:
lol, no you're not.
An ardent Ron Paul supporter who has even donated to his campaign, who staunchly supports individual liberties, and thinks the government needs to cut it's budget, get a lot smaller, and in general GTFO of our lives isn't on the right? This is news to me.

Quote:
I agree with this. It's tough for me to knowingly fall into the the class of people who "believe they are better than the candidates, and too good and intellectual to vote for them!" However, this is truly the case, I have too much dignity to vote for any of these nominees. Well, aside from Romney...I'll vote for him since Kid Rock is going to perform at his rally.

I keep waiting for the new GOP candidate to pop out of a cake somewhere and say "Surprise!!! You're on candid camera" after all the ---- we've seen. Somehow, Herman Cain may have been the best option, if foreign policy is not your thing.
If Paul doesn't become the nominee, I really don't know what I'm going to do. Frankly, the whole Republican nominee circus is like a bad nightmare. There's an obvious choice, but the media does their best to do a blackout on him, his own political party is against him, etc. - and who is polling highly? Why, batshit crazy Santorum!
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 02:44 PM   #40
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

People looooove wedge issues. Thus the existence of a mass market for Rush, et al.

Humans are evolved to "win" and to "be part of a team", not to seek truth:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468...you-think.html

Then the pundits and politicos use the ensuing shrill arguments to get people to "joint their team". The resulting FALSE DICHOTOMY allows the Establishment to continue to pick our pockets and erode our rights while attention is diverted.


Re: abortion. I believe the right question to ask is *not* "should it be allowed or not" but "at what point is the fetus a human being with a right to life?" (i.e. is it 1 day or is it 8 months 29 days?) Also, I agree with Ron Paul that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned but NOT because abortion should be banned, but because the Fed Gov doesn't have the authority to pass that, the individual States do. (The argument can also be used to end the Federal War on Drugs).
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
elesjuan's mediocre 95 Miata adventure (google fiber edition) elesjuan Build Threads 8 02-16-2016 09:36 PM
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
Squiblez 1996 Montego blue Squiblez Build Threads 2 09-22-2015 11:17 AM
Annoying little leaks AlwaysBroken Engine Performance 5 09-06-2015 01:53 AM
Lol IcantDo55 Insert BS here 2 09-18-2009 03:30 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:40 PM.