Sunday, March 4, 2012

Fluke That!

Listening to Rush the other day and he's talking about this Georgetown law student and how she can't afford condoms because she's having too much sex.  He was being hyperbolic of course, but I had to check this girl out for myself.

She is a very smart liberal hack who is basically lying to promote an agenda.  Her first lie is to deliberately conflate non-reproductive medical issues with birth control.  If you listen to her opening statement, she would have you believe that 99% of women who go to the doctor for birth control medication do so for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.  Really?  I suspect that most women get birth control for it's primary use which is not a medical condition, but a lifestyle choice.Interestingly enough, according to Ms. Fluke Georgetown student medical insurance does allow birth control to be used for medical purposes. 

Her next lie is that you can have your cake and eat it too.  The woman's sense of entitlement is disturbing.  To those who suggest she go somewhere else for law school, she retorts that she should not have to "choose" between a prestigious law education and her health.  Really?  Is that the only law school?  The only prestigious one?  Who says that she or anyone else has to be a lawyer?  Is it a right?  No, going to school is a privilege, one that you pay for.  No one forces you to go to law school, no one forces you to go to a catholic law school, and no one forces you to have sex.  The irony must be lost on Ms. Fluke that she and her ilk insist on forcing others to subsidize a life she voluntary chose to have.

Birth control costs about $1,000 per year, Georgetown about $40,000 per year.  You do the math.


Tammie said...

As a woman who needs birth control for a medical condition, I am offended that I have to justify why I need this medication. Birth control for many women is not a lifestyle choice but necessary for reproductive health.

It is one thing if health care was a totally free market where I only support health care that I would prefer. Why should insurance cover circumcisions, addiction treatment and a variety of medications that are medically questionable, but not cover medications that are integral to health of most women? When I get to pick and choose the coverage - okay - but until then, I want my birth control covered.

F. said...

I happen to have type 1 diabetes and I have to justify why I need insulin. Why should another medical condition be any different? The medication is a controlled substance that you need a prescription to get.

While I have no doubt that some women use birth control for purposes other than preventing pregnancy, how many as a percentage are we talking about? 5%, 10%, 20%.

You say that "if" health care were a totally free market, then you wouldn't want to mandate coverage. Fine, support the premium support model of health insurance, support ending the tax discrimination of employer sponsored medical insurance, support any number of free market alternatives and leave the righteous indignation at home.

Oh, and while health care is far from a free market, Ms. Fluke deliberately chose to go to a school where the health insurance provided did not meet her needs. Truth is, she could have gone somewhere else.

Tammie said...

Why should I not have righteous indignation? This is not about Ms. Fluke's choices. Whether she uses birth control is not my business. What is my business is access to necessary medication. Any right to deny me neccessary medication is unacceptable.

To equate birth control to insulin is ridiculous - there is no insurance that I am aware of that denies insulin to diabetics. I have been on policies that deny insurance coverage for contraceptives, no matter what the cause.

While I agree that Ms. Fluke's case is shaky at best, it is disingenious to say that birth control medication is a lifestyle choice. For women who have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, Endometriosis and other medical conditions - birth control is extremely beneficial. Without regular cycles, women are more prone to cancer, especially reproductive ones. I am happy that I can afford my birth control irrespective of what my insurer decides. Some woman cannot and they should be not denied legitimate medicine.

By the way, I definitely support decoupling insurance from the employer based model as well as ending tax discrimination. But that is not the issue. Within the model we have today, birth control is not any different than any other medication and should be treated as such.

F. said...

I appreciate your passion on the issue. No one says that insurance companies should deny treatment for medical reasons. The main point of the post is to point out that there is a difference between forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control for medical reasons and forcing them to pay for birth control for family planning purposes.

I believe that Ms. Fluke is deliberately conflating the issue by not making this very relevant distinction.

The truth is that insurance should not be used to pay for diabetic care or birth control or any known expenses, but that's another topic.

lise said...

Seriously, lets be clear here. Birth Control freed women from being subservient, and the right wing would LOVE to return to 'FAMILY VALUES' that chained us to the home and hearth. i find it insulting that men are even allowed to have a vote on this issue, and would like to inflate the price of CONDOMS and child support if this should pass. While in reality we should be debating why we allow the politicians to vote themselves raises while the rest of us are just getting by, or allowing them to have a seperate but not equal health care system and retirement benefits. IS THERE SO LITTLE COMMON SENSE LEFT?

Post a Comment