Well, yes and no. In the case Rush Limbaugh raised, taxpayers would not have to pay for a college student's contraception. But in the future, Obama reforms mean taxpayer money could go subsidize insurance plans that include contraception.
Is Rush Limbaugh right that Sandra Fluke is in favor of taxpayers funding her personal intimate activities?
Skip to next paragraphMost of the uproar over the talk show/provocateur?s Fluke-related comments has focused on his language. He said the Georgetown University law student was a ?slut? and a ?prostitute,? among other things. But he?s taken that rhetoric back ? today he said he wanted to ?sincerely apologize? to Fluke for ?using those two words to describe her.?
We?re talking about something else here: the substance behind Mr. Limbaugh?s policy critique.?
Limbaugh has consistently implied that the underlying controversy here involves taxpayers being forced to ante up to cover contraception for women.
On March 3, for instance, he posted on his website?a statement?that said in part: ?I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.... Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit??
Narrowly speaking, this is incorrect. The issue at hand involves the Obama administration?s attempt to require that employer-provided health insurance provide contraception for women. Asked about Limbaugh on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul framed the disagreement more precisely.
?I, as an OB doctor, certainly endorse the whole idea of birth control,? said Congressman Paul. ?But this is something different. This is philosophically and politically important because, does the government have a mandate to tell insurance what to give??
Under the administration?s original contraception proposal, taxpayers in general would not have paid directly for any woman?s insurance-provided contraception. The cost would have been borne by the other people in the insurance pool in question, in the form of slightly higher premiums for their policies, and by the employer providing the insurance.
jason campbell mardi gras elizabeth smart fun. hepatitis c symptoms david bradley jamie lee curtis
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.