In the spirit of Andrew Breitbart (may he rest in peace), I feel the need to expand on my experience with NBC Nightly News last night.
I had a good experience with NBC a couple of months ago, so when they asked me back, I agreed to come talk about what Rush Limbaugh had said yesterday about the Georgetown law student who testified before the Democrats on the contraceptive issue.
The producers culled a few unrepresentative words from my interview. So here’s what I said.
When the producer asked: “What do you make of Rush Limbaugh’s comments?” I said that his choice of words was crude but that I certainly understood and sympathized with the point he was making. A law student is now a hardship case? She needs the rest of us to provide her with free contraceptives?
Well, said the producer, “What about this contraceptive thing? Aren’t we past all of that?” I said that liberals and Democrats were distorting the issue. The issue is not “access” to contraceptives. With the exception of one stray, unwise remark from Rick Santorum (and he said nothing about denying women access, merely that he questioned whether they were altogether good for women) no one on our side is arguing about access to contraceptives. What the Obama administration is requiring is that all women — no matter what their income — be provided with free contraceptives. And of course, all entities, even religious institutions with moral objections, are required to provide contraceptives and abortifacients for free as well.
So the Democrats come along and force insurance companies to provide for free something that 95 percent of people have been purchasing, and when we object, they scream that we want to “send women back” to someplace or other, and deny women access to contraceptives. It’s ludicrous and dishonest and manipulative.
But NBC had their template: Women protest Rush’s awful words. And while I had thought that they were going to include at least one woman who didn’t see it their way, I was wrong.
keep trying, eventually you figure a way to force them to show someone who disagrees ... WWBD ... what would breitbart do ? to force them ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewould it be possible to go on to Rush's show and explain this situation? Clearly media bias, once again, in the MSM. Rush probably has more listeners than the people who watch NBC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for trying, but I'm reminded again of the frog and the scorpion. A scorpion does what a scorpion does -- you helped them make the segment they needed and then they stung you.
It's like the GOP debates being "moderated" by MSM hacks -- why? I understand the desire to engage the media culture head-on, but isn't it just as important to marginalize that media culture when it dedicates itself to such rank partisanship?
Because it is dedicated to partisanship, and it very much means to marginalize us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, Mona, maybe we conservatives were right about the left wing media, huh?
Or maybe you wanted to attack Rush without the blowback.
Or both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a surprise the MSM being dishonest about both the question at issue and then misrepresenting your answer.
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you...not.
Everything about this administration has to do with dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. They are imposing their state sanctioned secular sharia through the tried and true tactics of intimidation and deceit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving contraceptives provided as part of your health insurance coverage - the cost of which the vast majority of employees deduct from their paychecks - is not free. You're trying to bolster a rickety discrimination argument with a false economic one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow I'm confused. My President told me they would be provided free.
Man, I've already lined up the dates. I'm entitled! I've got rights!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseno he didn't. He said it wouldn't require a co-pay. That's not free.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many employees pay the FULL cost of their health insurance?
So you are right, it would not be free. It would just be discounted 80%
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"And while I had thought that they were going to include at least one woman who didn’t see it their way, I was wrong."
I thought that you (a) are a woman, (b) were on the show, and (c) didn't see it their way. What am I missing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust noticed your earlier "editing" post, so never mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it frustrating that in all this discussion no one suggests what is an answer to the specific question and to the broader problem of what to replace Obamacare with:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTake the tax incentive employer's get for providing health insurance and give it to individuals to purchase health insurance specific to their needs and beliefs. This would eliminate mandates for coverage that are primarily in place for political reasons.
It would also help if the federal government properly used the Commerce Clause to keep states from limiting insurance options. Let the free market work!
"Take the tax incentive employer's get for providing health insurance and give it to individuals to purchase health insurance specific to their needs and beliefs...." "...Let the free market work!"
The problem is that the free market would work against you. It's little old you negotiating a deal against a billion dollar corporation and you will not get very good rates. However if you work for a large company, they have probably negotiated a much better deal.
Why in the world are we letting giant corporations determine how much and how expensive our coverage is? This is our health we're talking about and some unnamed bureaucrat at some company gets to take my money and later decide that what's wrong with me wasn't actually covered? And that's legal? Or maybe I could sue, spending money I don't really have on a lawyer who'll be totally outmatched by the big guns the corporation will have as lawyers. Face it... the GOP never had a good response for correcting the abuses of the old system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePutting aside whether or not Medicare Part D should have ever happened, it did result in lower costs than predicted due to market forces, and in that case companies were competing for customers on an individual basis. My point is it is one alternative. I am open to others, but it would be good if one of the candidates stepped and up firmly presented one as "I believe this should be the replacement for Obamacare because...". At least that might put the debate on their terms and not Obama's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would like a source/citation in support of the claim that "95%" or women currently pay for contraception. I am gonna guess there isn't one since any decent health care plan covers contraception.
I also point out that many people in law school are piling up huge quantities of debt and in many cases not bringing in any income. So "yes," I could see a situation where a law student would have a tough time financially. Not all law students are privileged Harvard/Yale types living off their parents before they get their Federalist Society-supplied think tank job.
and of course, the free condoms distributed as AIDS prevention are suddenly the preferred contraceptive method for conservatives-- when condoms are not highly effective and birth control pills are what many women prefer.
Birth control pills can run 50-80$/month depending on brand.
Couch this discussion in "religious liberty" all you want, conservatives have been trying to turn back the sexual revolution for decades, and that is what is going on here with all the talk of "aspirin between the knees" and "xxxxx" (the word that Rush Limbaugh called that woman is NOT permitted by your own website!!!) and everything else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteveeboy, where did you get your numbers for the costs of contaceptives? Several studies have shown that the Pill (in various forms) can be purchased at WalMart or Target for $9-10 per month.
As to your question about whether or not "95%" of women pay for contraception, I don't have a source either. But, no insurance plan I've been on in my life has not "covered" contraception, but always with a co-pay. Which is larger than the total amount that WalMart and Target charge (see first paragraph).
Is this young lady possibly incurring a lot of debt at G'Town law? Yes, probably. Does she choose to do so? Yes. Could she choose to better prioritize her cash outlays to afford $9-10 a month for the Pill? Yes, probably. 2.5 fewer trips to Starbucks would probably cover it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, you can buy the pill at wal mart or target, if there is one near you, if you have a doctor to write a script, if you can get to the store, etc.
And if that pill is generic.
But if it is not, you may get a pill with a cost of 70$. I know this because it just happened to my SO last month.
She had to scramble with her ob/gyn to get that script changed, get the pharmacy to fix it, etc.
Note that she has a pretty good insurance package from work and with the co pay her cost is a lot less, like 14$/month
But this is beside the point and does not provide support for the claim that "95%" of women pay for contraception right now.
And "no plan" you personally have ever had does not cover contraception.
That's great, but what are conservatives trying to do with Blunt Amendment?
Make it so health insurance no longer covers birth control based on the religious doctrine of the employer!
Also ironic that for a poor woman, the easiest access to ob/gyn care, the script for those cheap pills from Target and Wal Mart, etc. would be from planned parenthood.
Where do conservatives stand on planned parenthood?
Oh, that's right, conservatives are trying to get rid of that too...
REALLY noticing a trend here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLaura, you're expecting a Georgetown law student seeking to engage in consequence-free sex to take responsibility for finding affordable contraception?
Have you no shame?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHate to break it to you steveeboy, but if the condoms aren't effective against pregnancy, they're not going to do too much to prevent AIDS either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't watch any of NBC's networks. Yea I'm one of those nuts who deprives himself their wonderful entertainment because I don't support the views they put in all their programming. I'm crazy that way. On the other hand, I'll never be duped by them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse