Let's get a couple of facts straight, Rush.

[spooky3]

Last edited Sun Mar 4, 2012, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

(I don't for a minute believe he is confused about these, but he knows his ignoramus audience can be convinced of anything, and having no morals, he is happy to mislead them).

1) Ms. Fluke is a graduate student at Georgetown University. It has a student health insurance plan required of students who are not covered by other plans.

2) Students pay at least $1500 per year for this coverage. The university may also pay for part of it.

3) GU is a private university, not a public university. Tuition is high at GU, and private (not public) donations are growing. The church generally does not provide financial assistance to the university, though it does place priests there, e.g., on the faculty, as advisors for students who seek advice.

4) Although GU is a Jesuit-affiliated institution, it is not a church. Many students, faculty, and staff are members of other religions, or no religion, and are welcomed in order for the school to continue to rise in the quality rankings of top schools.

So, Rush, your "concern" over the taxpayers' having to pay for this coverage is, ah, misplaced. The issue Ms. Fluke is drawing attention to is whether the university should be allowed to specify that the insurance coverage exclude payment for contraception, which may also be utilized for other medical needs.

It's also wrong when people don't realize that "there is no free lunch" and say that this coverage is free or that "insurance" would cover it and therefore no one should be concerned about the costs. Someone will have to pay for this. Student premiums might increase, or the university's share might go up. But as someone pointed out on another thread, this might actually save money in the long run, since medical conditions could worsen without this early care, and pregnancies have greater risk.

But it won't be Rush or the taxpayers who pay even if premiums increased. This means that even his "absurd joke" had not a crumb of a basis in reality.

Don't be disingenuous, Rush. Everyone except your dittoheads sees right through you.

[zbdent]

1. "Everyone except your dittoheads" ...

Rush and company don't need to actually believe what he spews ...

what matters is that the propaganda is out there, and in peoples' minds.

Like "The jury will disregard the statements made." ... they're out there, and now in the peoples' minds.

[spooky3]

2. agreed - that's why I say he has no morals.

[seattleblah]

3. Because Rush's fourth vacation house, nth $100,000+ car or nth vacation...

are more important than the health of college women. That's really what he is telling us he believes. As usual with extremists, their views still shine through the web of lies they weave.

[spooky3]

4. exactly--so who is REALLY the prostitute here?

[mainer]

5. Does he also think taxpayers pay for his Viagra?

of course not. He's purposefully obtuse. This is the part that really frustrates me. That the ditto-heads keep going on about how the taxpayer is paying for students' birth control.

What ARE the taxpayers paying for? We're supporting these Catholic-run institutions through government grants or payment via Medicare, Medicaid to hospitals, etc. Which means we THE TAXPAYERS are subsidizing these hospitals and universities. We TAXPAYERS who are not even Catholic are helping these institutions survive.

[spooky3]

6. not exactly

The hospital is somewhat independent of the university and is run by MedStar. Prior to this agreement, the hospital was draining huge resources from the rest of the university (e.g., business school students' tuition was reallocated to cover hospital deficits) for many years. This was a serious problem. So the students and donors were actually subsidizing the hospital (in part because it was caring for indigent patients, which helps the public, but also due to many other causes that MedStar thought it could better manage), not the reverse.

Although there are researchers who because of their good work attract federal grants, it is a big stretch to say that the taxpayers are supporting the university. The grants support the direct and indirect costs of the research, which then benefits everyone when the research is published. But at GU this is a very small part of the total budget, in part because it doesn't have an engineering school and the sciences are somewhat small, which is where a lot of grant money exists. Tuition, donations, interest on donations, etc., are a much bigger part of the budget. One could also argue that any students who qualify for federal student loans help the university as well. For these reasons GU has to meet federal contractor requirements, including non-discrimination rules, etc.

All of the info I have posted in this thread is on the web and easy to find--just in case anyone's interested or doesn't believe me.

The point is that, aside from the factual info above, if you maintain that taxpayers are supporting the university, you are supporting that part of Rush's argument, that is, that he is potentially harmed as a taxpayer by any decision to expand insurance coverage that could increase costs. My point is that the taxpayers are paying little if any of the costs of this expensive private university and would not be affected by the decision to expand coverage.

[underpants]

8. Great post - I am not disagreeing with you but...

indigent care is usually at least subsidized by the state. At least it is in Virginia. Georgetown is in DC so I am not sure if DC subsidizes it but it probably does. All of what I am posting is aside from the finances of the hospital which could very well be losing money - I would trust your expertise on that.

[spooky3]

11. thanks --again--the hospital was bought by MedStar years ago--here's a link to

some sources of info about it:

http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/DC/Medstar-Georgetown-Medical-Center-Inc-Georgetown-University-Hospital.html

Also, search for "Medstar G...U.. hospital Kastor" (by a professor at U. MD) to find a .pdf that is helpful in explaining what happened and why.

on edit: see http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37496

"...The two institutions became particularly vulnerable to rising operational deficits in a competitive environment, receiving little or no government subsidy for care of indigent patients and no significant philanthropic contributions, corporate or personal. Officials at both George Washington and Georgetown were simply unable to come up with effective solutions other than to sell the hospitals and practice plans..."

And, especially now (since the failure of the Republicans to agree to adequate reimbursement rates), many hospitals and doctors lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients -- they charge their other paying customers more to try to cover some of these costs. In other words, many hospitals would be better off financially if they turned away these patients but if I understand correctly, by law they cannot. So I would argue that the provider is typically giving back more to the community than it receives IF you just take into account these costs.

So the hospital (and taxpayer) generally doesn't help the law school, where Ms. Fluke is. I don't want to say the taxpayer doesn't play any role -- it's just that the role is very small relative to other sources of $. These students pay $40-$50K per year to go to school there. Many have assistance, a lot of which comes from privately donated funds from alumni, etc. But people like Rush are just off-base about who is paying the freight.

Even at state universities, you might be surprised at how little funding comes from taxpayers versus other sources.

[11 Bravo]

7. Give him a minute. Rush requires 250 mg of Viagra to get ANYTHING straight.

[underpants]

9. DUzy!

[11 Bravo]

13. Thanks, underpants, but I think the DUzy folks have me on ignore.

JeffR was one of the very few who enjoyed my (warped) sense of humor.

(I really miss Jeff and his wife, the splendid NanceGreggs.)

[spooky3]

12. hahahaha!!!!

[Tennessee Gal]

17. Brilliant!!!!

[rustydog]

10. Well said! It is when dittoheads quote Rush on things likethis that I insist they read

more than Rush Limpball's lips for their information.

[ohheckyeah]

14. In her testimony

Ms. Fluke said that the insurance was not subsidized by the university.

[spooky3]

16. Thanks for this info. That makes Rush's reaction even more insane.

If students are paying the whole cost, how could premium increases/coverage provisions/etc. possibly affect Rush?

And - why isn't the failure to cover contraception, which disproportionately affects women, considered a violation of equal employment opportunity laws?

[ohheckyeah]

18. Yes -

according to Ms. Fluke the students are paying the whole cost of the premiums.

Rush isn't really very bright and the failure to cover birth control should be a violation of EEO laws, IMO.

[lunatica]

15. He's a legend in his own mind

And he's also a god among men, in his own mind.