It's usually the first few words out of peoples' mouths that determine the basis for their argument. People often focus on what comes downstream of those words, but do not necessarily spend as much time dealing with the initial assumptions or premises. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, he has always had an child-like inability to grasp the relevant information for an issue that's being discussed, much less to make accurate assumptions. So, as he waddled into the discussion of birth control and Sandra Fluke, it is no surprise that he got it wrong and then applied the most disgusting language he could think of to put some shock value around his hastily formed premise. But, I think it is really the multiple levels of false premises, rather than the words used that should get talked about more in this controversy:
She is having so much sex she can't pay for birthcontrol. So, she wants you and me (i.e taxpayers) to pay for her to have sex.
There's a lot of stupidity bundled up in that statement. Right off the bat, the idea that Rush knows how much sex Ms. Fluke is having, or that having a lot of sex somehow results in skyrocketing birth control costs, is transparently stupid. But, I think the even more critical lie to focus on here is that this has anything to do with tax payer funding or the newly invented "
freedom to prohibit" that many religiously affiliated institutions think they have now found in the Constitution to allow them to dictate other people's medical care. Rush, of course, would like to make this whole argument about saying a few naughty words, but follow me after the jump, my sluty friends, and I will explain why focusing on some additional levels of Rush's false premises is more important than ever.
First of all, the vast majority of health care coverage, whether administered through Obamacare, a nominally Catholic University or charity, or through an employer, is not "free health care." You are paying for it, not the tax payers. It's not some gift you are asking for (with strings attached). You pay your premiums, you want it to cover certain things. It covers services for men, it should cover services for women. Simple!
So, the view that saying something should be included in your health care coverage means you want tax payers to pay for it make no sense.
Does saying that you want mental health coverage in an insurance policy mean that you want to be paid to be crazy?
That would be terrible, of course, because at the moment to get paid to be crazy, you have to either be a Republican candidate with a SuperPAC, or a right wing talk show host. So, they don't want any competition.
But, seriously, if there is one fraction of a penny of government money, or any government oversight involved with health insurance, then the Republicans would like to argue that it instantly turns into government health insurance, which then by some strange Republican magic, gives them and/or any employer or religious potentate the right to dictate what is in it, how you can use it, and what kind of moral character you have if you question them.
The next part of this issue, where employers are involved in administering health insurance policies, is a subject that get even more convoluted. So, let's dive into that now. When people say they have health insurance through an employer, it can mean they pay 100% of the cost themselves, but just participate in a pool with other employers. It can mean they pay part of the costs and the employers pay another portion of the insurance cost as part of the non-wage compensation that employees receive for the work they do. It can be structured a lot of ways.
But, just like the case with Obamacare, student healthcare, or what have you, the employer is not giving you anything as a free gift. If they pay part of your healthcare cost, that is part of your compensation as an employee. Now think about this:
Does this give the employer special rights to control your behavior?
How about your salary?
When an employer pays your salary, does that give them the right to control how you spend it?
Why is it only with health insurance that we say the employer is "paying for it" and therefore they should have some say over it?
Why don't they apply this argument to salary and just say that if you work for any organization that ever takes one penny (directly or indirectly) from an organization affiliated with the Catholic Church, then that means you have to live by all the strictures of that church?
At that point, welcome to the Theocratic States of America (TM), because probably an argument could be made that one penny of money from some church or employer, or some government program, was involved directly or indirectly in paying for something related to everyone's salary or health care. Therefore, the logical and absurd conclusion is that they get to dictate your behavior.
I realize that seems like a stretch, but it may not be too far off from the fundamental stretch Republicans are making. When such warped thinking is not challenged vigorously, it gives warped personalities, like Rush Limbaugh the chance to pick up and further twist those ideas to truly obscene outcomes.