A Look At The Other Side Of Limbaugh Controversy

To be clear, I’m no fan of Rush and think his comments were far out of line.

But this commentary makes a good point about double standards of improper comments.

  

Author: PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

Share This Post On

59 Comments

  1. “I think BC should be OTC.”

    JDave, may I ask on what experience or knowledge you base that? I ask because there are some very real reasons that hormonal birth control is not OTC.

  2. While thinking of a response I think I found the difference here. First a few qualifiers:

    1) Bill Maher is a douche. Olbermann is also douchy. Both are paid to try and be left wig versions of the yakking heads from the right. Neither has anywhere near the audience of Limbaugh or Hannity or O’Reilly, simply because there is less of a market for their BS. Its there though.

    2) The left certainly does have its share of pundits making their daily bread throwing bombs, I am aware of this, and don’t excuse some of the crap that gets pulled. Maher and Olbermann don’t like conservative figures like Palin and Bachmann, so they say some awful things about them. But at least they know something about them and can allude to some reason for those slurs, even its just good old fashioned political enmity.

    But here is what struck me about Rush’s screed on Fluke. This could not have been a personal attack on her. He doesn’t know her well enough, and he certainly wasn’t paying attention to the details of her testimony. He doesn’t think this of her. This is what he thinks of women in general. Give him a few scant details and his brain automatically kicks into gear to fill in the details according to his worldview. And invariably those details are the most derisive and base possible motives for their actions and words.

    He does it all the time. He hears that there are US troops fighting the “Lords Resistance Army” in Uganda and the next thing out of his mouth is that Obama is sending US troops to kill christians for no particular reason. Any remotely reasonably individual would have stopped short of an absurd accusation like that without solid evidence, but not him. There is no filter whatsoever between this man’s addled brain and his mouth.

    And the real reason that I’m worried by him is that he is the biggest thing on radio. Tens of millions of people listen to him and buy his books. There are a LOT of people out there who apparently don’t have a problem with his thinking and apparently share his views.

  3. CStanley-But if people tended to fix broken bones by using a treatment that may or may not be as effective but paid for it themselves it is still a healthcare expense. A health care expense that it is in the interests of the insurance company to ensure that the consumer is using a product that actually heals that bone enough to not need later and costly treatment.

    Meaning some birth control is more effective than others and some is only for people that have problems with the side effects of the most commonly used. It is in an insurance companies best interests to get to choose what is used if it is paying for it and it is the best method to mitigate the chances what it desires to avoid, ie higher costs of birth.

    Condoms are not as effective as BC in controlling impregnation though it is true it is the most effective method to avoid std’s with the obvious exception of being a gamer geek which can also be defined as abstinence. I would note though that condoms are not as effective at preventing pregnancy. I would also note that it would be highly difficult to link the rise in std’s to the pill, in many ways this is a case of correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

    That time period also coincides with the sexual revolution in general. I also think it would be interesting to investigate the std rate during a few key time periods like WWII to see if rates were not similar due to decentralizing the core normal std groups. Meaning in normal American society since the late 1800′s especially in the west some men stayed faithful to wives and others joined single men frequenting prostitutes. Those groups and the women they were at the time or later married to. That concentrated the std’s but since the sexual revolution with its different sexual habits and during times of war and a low supply of females prostitution becomes socialized for many and std’s proliferate but. One need only look at the stunning amount of great minds of history that died of syphilis alone. I would agree that it is high for peacetime meaning it has become the norm to not wait until marriage to lose ones virginity. We also have more access to an entire globes worth of std’s which is rather new(meaning few hundred years).

    One could argue that BC made humanity more conscious of preventative measures as opposed to urban legends which results in more frequent use of other preventative measures like condoms for things like std’s. That has been my personal experience in the dating world anyway it is rare anymore to hear of people that do not see tests prior to moving out of the condom stage.

    I do think we will see the day though when insurance companies charge you more if you are not on BC on an individual basis unless the companies fall in on themselves before that. Of course it would be marketed as a “savings” for customers that stay on their preferred BC. The needs of the state and the needs of capitalism sometimes diverge, if so it would be offset with a tax credit or something. I will say I am not against co-pays but I am convinced it is a health related preventative measure and many other types of insurance already cover such things if it has a long term benefit for them. In my view they should be more proactive and give people discounts for not smoking and being in good shape and the like on an individual basis. That does not sound pleasant to me as a smoker that hates the outdoors but I do understand their interests on the topic and how they could spin it to do so.

  4. Roro: you beat me to it. There are a lot of reasons that hormonal BC should be taken only under a doctor’s consultation. Perhaps JDave is unaware of the risks involved for certain women.

    MSF:
    One problem is that defining pregnancy as a health risk is neither actuarially nor demographically accurate. Actuarially, it’s true that one pregnancy costs more than the pills needed during the same time frame, but it’s also true that delaying or avoiding pregnancy entirely raises the risk of breast cancer. Individually of course it often makes sense for women to delay or avoid pregnancies at different times of their lives, but as a whole, pregnancy isn’t necessarily a net cost for insurers.I’m sure there is some optimum pregnancy rate among the population of insured individuals but I have no idea what that rate is, or what level of contraceptive efficacy it would require to reach it.

    And for society, the demographic implications of our pregnancy avoidance are bringing us closer to fiscal disaster.

    Again, I understand the arguments for individuals, and I’m not suggesting that we should return to the days of bearing 12 kids. Just that the pendulum has swung in the other direction IMO and even if you don’t agree it’s certainly wrong to look at pregnancy as a disease or even necessarily as a condition with net cost as compared to the alternative of promoting as many nonpregnant women as possible.

  5. Slamfu, you comment gets to one of the differences; I think the reason there is no real equivalent to a Rush on the left is because liberals and moderates on the whole just aren’t as comfortable with that sort of daily bombastic haranguing and demonizing. I know there are many conservatives who aren’t either, but the massive fan fodder for a Rush Limbaugh type just isn’t there for the left. Some have tried but the audiences end up being a fraction of the size.

  6. For those who are questioning the $3,000 figure– she says that is for the period of time that she is in law school — NOT per year.

    That part of DC is also very expensive

  7. CStanley-It is a preventible condition that is costly to the insurance industry, for them it is a disease for others it is a “gift” and for the fiscally minded it is a financial risk. To say that raised breast cancer risk offsets the costs of birth is just in no way true, after birth the insurance company gets 18 years more of taking care of another human being with questionable health at best it cuts down some of the cost benefit a bit but not every woman that fails to breed gets breast cancer and not every woman that gets breast cancer has failed to have children. It merely raises your risk where as birth has a very high percentage of resulting in high medical costs.

    We also have plenty of people in the US because we continually import more. The problem comes when we refuse to legalize that importation of labor to offset our lack of desire to go into debt to breed. I am sure for many not breeding is not tied to a financial decision but it is for me. Regardless of how you look at it though that is not the insurance companies problem that is the states problem and if the state wants a different result they will need to in some way pick up the tab. Otherwise they are expecting something for nothing in an environment of diminishing access to resources and that will only result in their favor for so long. Much like in Europe bribes will eventually be needed and that is only if we refuse to admit that it makes more sense to import.

    I agree that we should not go back to the 12 kids per house habit if for no other reason than a vagina is not a clown car and we already have plenty of humans. We as a planet are over populated. We as a nation need more people it is in the worlds best interests to import them as opposed to manufacture them and it is also greatly cheaper. Basic cost/benefit analysis and decision making. I know this sounds cold but in a world with shrinking wages for decades for the class I am in I have zero belief that the trend will reverse and without that happening I do not see how it is in anyone financial best interests to have a child unless they are making near six figures…which of course is a small and oddly often nonbreeding group of the population. Actually I would say it is outright fiscal insanity and irrational.

    This is where the free market and the needs of the state and of its populace differ. I would note though in a world that is overpopulated maybe it is a good thing to promote nonpregnant women because they make room for those that do not follow along. Without their nonbreeding prices would go up more because resources would be stretched ever further and they are finite not infinite.

  8. Yes, that does sound cold, and immensely sad.

  9. Well I cant say it is not sad…it truly is. Of all the people I grew up with only those that had children in high school or directly afterward had more than one and of course they were and remain the least financially capable of supporting it.

    Those that waited mostly have a single child with no plans for another though I would guess those that have chosen to not breed at all are somewhere between 10-20% which I find a rather stunning amount compared to older groups I know. Of course my statistical sample is largely tied to my facebook list since I left home right after school and didnt return so I would take what I said with a block of salt.

    In short those that are making wise financial decisions and planning their lives rationally are not breeding in large amounts precisely because they make wise financial decisions and plan their lives rationally. Which I suppose is good since someone needs to pay for the welfare of those breeding beyond their financial capacity.

Submit a Comment