[Update: One thing harped upon in the thread -- now over 1000 (the record at VC was a birther thread, it has a couple hundred to go) comments -- is the $3000 figure cited. She cited that as the high end. I'm a bit annoyed that a quick search did not obtain some clarity on the matter, details on the costs a logical thing to provide, but then again the actual details as compared to rhetoric isn't the main point here. If it was eye or oral care, half that figure wouldn't be an issue. It's a red herring. Insurance includes smaller costs and it's small on both ends.
This RL friendly source noted a $1800 figure, which might just be for the pills and nothing else. A differential, again from an unfavorable source, of a few hundred annually, putting aside that some spend more than three years at law school. This could be explained in various ways including doctor visits, tests or a special prescription. Maybe, if she was allowed to be a witness, Republicans could have asked her where her figure came from.]
Rush did not suddenly just act like an ass now, but this discussion of his "slut" comment about Ms. Fluke is telling. This issue is not just some theoretical discussion but quite personal and opposition often quite sexist. His crudeness is helpful in removing the facade.
There continues to be a basic sentiment that falls apart upon scrutiny. One person argued that insurance should only be for major unexpected happenings as if insurance is not repeatedly used for other things, in part to prevent that sort of thing. For instance, periodic visits or a visit for a child when s/he does not have some major illness. One person over at Slate once argued that coverage for abortion is misguided since it only raises rates, which are minor anyways. More so than chemical contraceptives, which for various people are not cheap (and those who live on the proverbial ramen noodles very well might not have much spare money at all), abortions are not that cheap. And, why stop there? Why cover eyeglasses or dental check-ups, both which might be less money than abortion? And, abortions are like accidents, not planned or common occurrences for specific individuals. OTOH, the average person is likely to have accidents now and again.
[Another thing that might be addressed is the overall idea that "we" are paying for anything here. The issue is not Medicaid or something but what is covered by insurance that a person pays for. The whole point is that equal protection (and sound policy) entails including certain coverage like if we have police protection,* not protecting gay clubs would be a problem. A few religious institutions self-insure but most do not, so the money ultimately goes into a broad pool, and I would be surprised if even the self-insured institutions are totally isolated writ large, even beyond federal funding in some fashion.]
There is a certain absurdity here. Women use oral contraceptives for various reasons, including to have consistent insurance (natch) against pregnancy. Condoms fail, but that is only part of the matter. Sex is not some easily regimented affair and most of us are well aware of the fact. People, including married and unmarried, particularly younger people, are yes sometimes a bit reckless. Duh. This is the value of oral contraceptives. People have sex, particularly those in college. Shocker. People are not "sluts" for having sex. Mature individuals, and apparently too many are not, realize adult women (even teenagers) sensibly use contraceptives, and along with other health benefits,** it makes a good amount of sense to factor this into insurance costs. As is noted in the thread, that is likely why so many plans already provide coverage for contraceptives.
The same holds true in other situations, including the PPACA as a whole. If those who drive can be required to have insurance given the rules of chance, taking into consideration basic rules of human nature makes sense too. The logical person can see just like car insurance does not lead to bicycle riders needing to have it that contraceptives are not akin to non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery (e.g., "it makes them feel good, so you know, that's healthy too, you know") or any such thing cited by some people, often with a sneer. The USSC in the early 1970s struck down a law that only barred the distribution of contraceptives to the unmarried as unreasonable but the state court went to the core of the matter:
Bottom line, it goes beyond this issue. Basic civility and common sense should be used. RL is not merely some Howard Stern. He is a major voice of a certain political sentiment and clearly voices what they are thinking. He also helps influence the conversation in the process as can those who respond. Yet again, Mill was right -- erroneous speech can promote basic truths.
[After many leading Republicans atypically called him out, RL "apologized," but continued to misconstrue the situation. Well, we can't expect TOO much from the guy.]
---
* Some simply refuse to accept that police and fire protection is a type of insurance. We pay taxes and the public at large is the "pool" that is covered when something occurs. Like here, catastrophic events are not the only time services are rendered and prevention is an important aspect.
Fire services in particular used to be private and even now a year or so ago a news story flagged that in some areas, if you don't pay into the system, you will not get coverage in the case of a fire. And, we are "mandated" to have such coverage in most areas. It is seen as normal, but like many things such as modern civil rights laws, it once was not.
** Some, again often selectively assuming good faith, say that it is fine to require coverage for "real" health concerns such as ovarian cysts. Again, not only are preventing the medical difficulties of pregnancy "real" health concerns, as Ms. Fluke noted, when contraceptives are controversial, every use becomes so as well. And, the result is that they too have problems. It is like use of opiates for pain. Some are hard pressed to get enough, since the very use is controversial and seen as overused. If contraceptives are put in the same class as morphine, we are in trouble.
This RL friendly source noted a $1800 figure, which might just be for the pills and nothing else. A differential, again from an unfavorable source, of a few hundred annually, putting aside that some spend more than three years at law school. This could be explained in various ways including doctor visits, tests or a special prescription. Maybe, if she was allowed to be a witness, Republicans could have asked her where her figure came from.]
Rush did not suddenly just act like an ass now, but this discussion of his "slut" comment about Ms. Fluke is telling. This issue is not just some theoretical discussion but quite personal and opposition often quite sexist. His crudeness is helpful in removing the facade.
There continues to be a basic sentiment that falls apart upon scrutiny. One person argued that insurance should only be for major unexpected happenings as if insurance is not repeatedly used for other things, in part to prevent that sort of thing. For instance, periodic visits or a visit for a child when s/he does not have some major illness. One person over at Slate once argued that coverage for abortion is misguided since it only raises rates, which are minor anyways. More so than chemical contraceptives, which for various people are not cheap (and those who live on the proverbial ramen noodles very well might not have much spare money at all), abortions are not that cheap. And, why stop there? Why cover eyeglasses or dental check-ups, both which might be less money than abortion? And, abortions are like accidents, not planned or common occurrences for specific individuals. OTOH, the average person is likely to have accidents now and again.
[Another thing that might be addressed is the overall idea that "we" are paying for anything here. The issue is not Medicaid or something but what is covered by insurance that a person pays for. The whole point is that equal protection (and sound policy) entails including certain coverage like if we have police protection,* not protecting gay clubs would be a problem. A few religious institutions self-insure but most do not, so the money ultimately goes into a broad pool, and I would be surprised if even the self-insured institutions are totally isolated writ large, even beyond federal funding in some fashion.]
There is a certain absurdity here. Women use oral contraceptives for various reasons, including to have consistent insurance (natch) against pregnancy. Condoms fail, but that is only part of the matter. Sex is not some easily regimented affair and most of us are well aware of the fact. People, including married and unmarried, particularly younger people, are yes sometimes a bit reckless. Duh. This is the value of oral contraceptives. People have sex, particularly those in college. Shocker. People are not "sluts" for having sex. Mature individuals, and apparently too many are not, realize adult women (even teenagers) sensibly use contraceptives, and along with other health benefits,** it makes a good amount of sense to factor this into insurance costs. As is noted in the thread, that is likely why so many plans already provide coverage for contraceptives.
The same holds true in other situations, including the PPACA as a whole. If those who drive can be required to have insurance given the rules of chance, taking into consideration basic rules of human nature makes sense too. The logical person can see just like car insurance does not lead to bicycle riders needing to have it that contraceptives are not akin to non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery (e.g., "it makes them feel good, so you know, that's healthy too, you know") or any such thing cited by some people, often with a sneer. The USSC in the early 1970s struck down a law that only barred the distribution of contraceptives to the unmarried as unreasonable but the state court went to the core of the matter:
To say that contraceptives are immoral as such, and are to be forbidden to unmarried persons who will nevertheless persist in having intercourse, means that such persons must risk for themselves an unwanted pregnancy, for the child, illegitimacy, and [405 U.S. 438, 453] for society, a possible obligation of support. Such a view of morality is not only the very mirror image of sensible legislation; we consider that it conflicts with fundamental human rights. In the absence of demonstrated harm, we hold it is beyond the competency of the state.I find it best, and it suits my sentiments, to try to deal with others as if their arguments are aboveboard and not tainted with blatant prejudices. This never is 100% possible, since everyone has some bias or prejudice or speaks without total care and discretion. At some point, however, the other side crosses a tipping point. It is very hard to talk to a wall, with or without the crudity. I'm not sure why Prof. Volokh felt now was the time to cite Rush crossing the line -- is this really much different than many other examples? -- but he did a service in so doing.
Bottom line, it goes beyond this issue. Basic civility and common sense should be used. RL is not merely some Howard Stern. He is a major voice of a certain political sentiment and clearly voices what they are thinking. He also helps influence the conversation in the process as can those who respond. Yet again, Mill was right -- erroneous speech can promote basic truths.
[After many leading Republicans atypically called him out, RL "apologized," but continued to misconstrue the situation. Well, we can't expect TOO much from the guy.]
---
* Some simply refuse to accept that police and fire protection is a type of insurance. We pay taxes and the public at large is the "pool" that is covered when something occurs. Like here, catastrophic events are not the only time services are rendered and prevention is an important aspect.
Fire services in particular used to be private and even now a year or so ago a news story flagged that in some areas, if you don't pay into the system, you will not get coverage in the case of a fire. And, we are "mandated" to have such coverage in most areas. It is seen as normal, but like many things such as modern civil rights laws, it once was not.
** Some, again often selectively assuming good faith, say that it is fine to require coverage for "real" health concerns such as ovarian cysts. Again, not only are preventing the medical difficulties of pregnancy "real" health concerns, as Ms. Fluke noted, when contraceptives are controversial, every use becomes so as well. And, the result is that they too have problems. It is like use of opiates for pain. Some are hard pressed to get enough, since the very use is controversial and seen as overused. If contraceptives are put in the same class as morphine, we are in trouble.