tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post7885402851524412506..comments2023-04-04T03:36:39.078-05:00Comments on Coach Sal: Paying the Piper, Calling the TuneCoach Salhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13942541698409058923noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-59246004819825356572012-09-14T10:39:13.824-05:002012-09-14T10:39:13.824-05:00I mostly agree with your post here. I think there...I mostly agree with your post here. I think there should be a copay on birth control even though, as a married, female, mid-twenties grad student, I fall right into the category of women who would most benefit from no copay.<br /><br />But, just to set the record straight a bit, here is Sandra Fluke's actual testimony before Congress, somewhat misconstrued by Rush Limbaugh:<br /><br />http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/<br /><br />You'll notice that she was mostly speaking to the fact that contraception was not covered at all under the insurance offered to students at Georgetown. A more accurate comparison would be if a school associated with some religion that did not condone the use of penicillin offered insurance that did not cover penicillin. Fluke also makes the point that birth control can be medically necessary, and it's not always appropriate to regard the debate as one about subsidizing licentious lifestyles. Birth control, even when not used for contraceptive purposes, often gets treated like an asset to recreation, rather than a potential treatment or medical substance.<br /><br />Whether or not a Christian institution should offer insurance that covers birth control is a slightly different debate from whether or not there should be copays on birth control. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17478409736896393178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-35737225583918367132012-03-14T07:18:11.406-05:002012-03-14T07:18:11.406-05:00Limbaugh doesn't surprise me one bit; it's...Limbaugh doesn't surprise me one bit; it's the conservative Christian response that gets me. I would have thought that the low hanging fruit would be so easy to take: use the obvious opportunity to denounce such talk and elevate yourselves above the "godless Left." Gain the moral high ground, and then move quickly to the real issues at stake. But no...it's faux outrage for faux outrage, and the whole endless cycle is perpetuated. To me, the "But they do it, too!" finger-pointing plays into the whole scheme so seamlessly. Round and round and round and round we go...Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377026220543309858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-7242803030832644602012-03-13T19:04:55.857-05:002012-03-13T19:04:55.857-05:00I like the title. And I like the concept. But le...I like the title. And I like the concept. But let's get real--Limbaugh is an entertainer who got his start by hanging up on callers to the recorded sound of a toilet flushing and a vacuum cleaner and calling it "an abortion of an inconvenient conversation." I don't buy the faux-outrage. I don't expect, as the author called it, an "erudite contribution to public discourse" from Limbaugh or Jon Stewart or Bill Maher. You and I can have an intelligent conversation on this matter, because of our shared values and mutual love and respect. If you think you're getting the same from a talk-radio DJ or a cable-TV comedian, good luck with that.Coach Salhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13942541698409058923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-6745301186983288572012-03-13T18:18:44.490-05:002012-03-13T18:18:44.490-05:00I honestly thought your response to Limbaugh would...I honestly thought your response to Limbaugh would be more along these lines:<br />http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/03/13/disagreeing-wthout-being-disagreeable<br /><br />Even the title is "you." I was sorry to see that I was mistaken.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10377026220543309858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-63258736503596126992012-03-06T15:06:47.620-05:002012-03-06T15:06:47.620-05:00Yes, I agree. At least in principle. But like I ...Yes, I agree. At least in principle. But like I alluded to in my Churchill quote, we now have reached a point where we're mostly haggling over price. If I could somehow wave a magic wand and get "real" insurance back--the sort we had before HMO's were invented, when you had a $500 deductible and then paid 20% of everything after that (back when $500 was real money, BTW), I'm all for it. But the monstrosity we have now is nothing like that. We don't have the government making the decisions, but we have faceless bureaucrats empowered by the government's cronyism and mandates doing the same. My family shells out basically a second mortgage payment for alleged insurance (when you count what my employer pays Blue Cross instead of to me). And for that, I get "coverage" that we're scared to use because a simple X-ray or CAT scan can cost $1000 out of pocket. At least if "the government" were in charge, I'd get a vote! Like I said, if genuine free-market were a choice, I'd take it. But if we're going to have something crappy, I'd at least prefer something crappy that involves better math. If I had to design a system, and were unable to completely wipe the slate clean and start fresh, I might consider a "mandatory" minimum-coverage plan above which people could buy insurance or self-insure. It wouldn't matter much to me if the base plan were government run, or if it were private but with price supports for those who cannot pay. (We pay for them now, why not just do it?) But my plan, however it was built, would eliminate the guy who chooses to have an i-phone instead of health insurance. Now we're back to me picking your groceries again: I pay my kids' bills. But I also set the rules for them. In my opinion, maintaining anyone's "dignity" or "independence" if they are not self-supporting is a fiction, and a pernicious one.Coach Salhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13942541698409058923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5724595763985149011.post-4324429347344299652012-03-06T14:52:56.273-05:002012-03-06T14:52:56.273-05:00"But once 'society' has a stake in pa..."But once 'society' has a stake in paying for the consequences of your (or my) actions, we get a vote."<br /><br />For me, *THIS* is the biggest issue with government-run health care. The government will have a "legitimate" claim to regulate and manage nearly every aspect of your life, on the basis of what lowers insurance liabilities the most.MichaelPoluttahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17323419529329808450noreply@blogger.com