Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Who is Sandra Fluke, really?

English: Edward Bennett Williams Library at th...
Image via Wikipedia
"Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she's not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case."

And this.

Sandra Fluke claimed that people in school were paying $3,000 over the course of three years for birth control and many people could no longer fit it into their budgets.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," Fluke said. "For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy."
The last time I checked sex was a discretionary activity. And, outside of marriage, it is still immoral in my books.

But what I really don't get is this. If someone is spending $1,000(*) annually and they want to get insurance to cover it, how can they expect the insurance to cost less than $1,000(*)? And why should they expect someone else to chip in? Do they think insurance is some form of magic where expenditures can be made without expenses being incurred? Or is this just a form of "I want to be behave irresponsibly and have someone else pick up the tab"? Or, "I want my freedom and someone else a slave to the costs involved"?

It's hard to get inside the left/liberal mind. But at some level it seems to me they are a war with reality.

And that's the way the befuddled Ball bounces.

(*) fixed per Anon1152. Anon -- your cheque is in the mail.


Alain said...

Who is she? She is a Democrat plant, typical of Obama's operating style. If she or anyone else wants to have sex as often as possible, who cares. But expecting others to pay for it as Obama plans is a very different matter.

Anonymous said...

Anybody who is not a republican should be abused. Rush should not have apologized. He should continue to name cal and destroy the reputations of non- republicans.

Anon1152 said...

You say "$3,000 per year". But what you quote says "$3,000 over the course of three years".

You're off by about 300%.

You may be at war with reality yourself (or at least at war with math). But I suspect you just miss-typed/miss-read.

Anon1152 said...

Anon@8:15 said "Anybody who is not a republican should be abused."

I thought that bore repeating. And perhaps others could comment on that sentiment.

Anon1152 said...

Oops. I got the time wrong. Anon@8:19. My apologies.

RkBall said...

It sounds troll-like to me.

Anon1152 said...

Thank you.

Now, I'll try to say a few more substantive things.

1. The price of X amount of prescription drugs paid for by an individual is generally much more than the price of a prescription drug paid for by an insurance company. I'm told that they often have agreements with providers... they buy larger amounts and get get lower per unit prices. So it is still possible that the cost of the insurance premiums is less than the cost of the services provided. Whether or not an insurance program covers birth control pills, the insurance company makes money.

2. Other institutions cover contraception. Some cover viagra, but not contraception.

3. There are non-contraceptive reasons to take oral contraceptive pills. Sandra Fluke's testimony addressed that.

4. Would you be less offended if oral contraceptives were covered for married women? Or does the concept of contraception bother you, as a matter of principle? (I realize that we can and perhaps should distinguish between methods of contraception that prevent ovulation or fertilization from methods that merely prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterine wall).


RkBall said...

4. Would you be less offended if oral contraceptives were covered for married women? Or does the concept of contraception bother you, as a matter of principle?

Yes, as in "less", and, no. What bothers me is the presumption that "someone else" should pay for a young woman's entirely discretionary sexual habits. I would feel the same way if skateboarders demanded universities cover the cost of their helmets, or men demanded "free" condoms. I'm offended by the sense of entitlement and the desire to impose one's immoral values on Christian institutions as "a right".

RkBall said...

PS -- when I went to university I paid tuition and room-and-board in residence (meaning my meals were already paid for.) One month, my entire expenditures for the month amounted to 75 cents as I recall -- and that was for stamps for letters. I didn't have the money so I adjusted my lifestyle accordingly. I didn't expect or demand that someone else foot the bill. I did seek ways to become employable and to earn money so down the road I would have some to spend.

That, my friend, is the mind of a fledgling conservative.

I remember my leftist friends prattling on about how the government owed us money because it kept us out of the work-force.

One summer, at university, I had three jobs. I worked from 6:30 am - 7:45 am cleaning a store, 8 am - 3:45 pm at Superior Propane, and 4 pm til midnight at a factory.

My first job out of university was shoveling gravel.

Anon1152 said...

I mentioned in one of my previous comments that many plans cover viagra but not contraception. I expected someone to say: ok 1152, lets see some proof. I thought after posting that I should have had something...

Here is an older article that mentions the phenomenon:

Viagra is a much more discretionary drug than hormonal birth control. If "the pill" is to work, it has to be taken every day, not just any day you have sex (or even every day during any week you have sex).

I'm not necessarily against Viagra being covered by an insurance plan. But if Viagra is covered, surely "the pill" should be covered... no?

As for paying for it... people do pay for their insurance coverage. I recently found something very interesting. First, remember what I said earlier: the cost of drugs for an individual paying is more than the cost of the drug if an insurance company is paying. The actual cost of something and the market price can be very different. In addition, students do pay for their insurance coverage. Georgetown's coverage is $1,895 per year for a single student.


I think this fact counters your argument that Sandra Fluke et al are expecting others to "foot the bill." (It probably doesn't destroy that argument completely, but I think it is a powerful counterpoint).

I would like to see whether or not Georgetown's student insurance covers Viagra. That sort of gender/sex based inequity is not uncommon. For example, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that an insurance program that covered disabilities--including disabilities resulting from prostate surgery, but excluding disabilities that were attributable to pregnancy--did not discriminate against women, but only between "pregnant and nonpregnant persons" (which wasn't unconstitutional in their eyes).

Persons. There's that word again. But I digress.

.... OK. I wanted to see whether or not Georgetown covered viagra but not birth control so much that I looked into it a bit more. And, as far as I can tell, viagra is also excluded.


(It's on p.29, under #19h).

(p.29 #21 talks about how birth control, vasectomies, etc are also not covered).

At least it's consistent.

RkBall said...

If someone went before a Congressional committee to demand that Viagra be covered, I would have exactly the same response -- especially if they were unmarried.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"