Rush Limbaugh Apologizes For His "Slut" Remarks.

LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, and the count of lost advertisers is up to 29 this morning... And the bands "Rush" and the artist "Peter Gabriel" have served him with cease-and-desist orders to stop using their music on his show, or face lawsuits for copyright violations.

Yep... But he's such a sweetie...

I don't know if they can actually do that. Chrissie Hynde has been pissed off for years that Limbaugh uses her song for bumper music but Rush continues to play it.

And your point is.......? Rush doesn't care about other people's copyrights? He's a thief for using their work-product in violation of their copyrights, and in spite of being served with cease-and-desist orders?

No surprise there... Just add "thief" to his list of accomplishments and personal attributes.

Actually NPR was talking about this concerning political campaigns using the music of artists who disagree with them. If the campaign is in a licensed BMI or ASCAP building, they can use it because of the license. Parking lot? Farm? Then they have to ask for permission.

But if the artist doesn't want you to use their music, stop using it and paying the haters. Play the tunes of musicians who agree with you.

Rush must have paid Chrissie Hynde a million dollars after 10+ years of playing her, "My City Is Gone".

Interesting about the Rush band refusal, Rush tradtionally tends to be a conservative band.

Kate wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Kate wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: If you are asking that the insurance companies be required to cover prescriptions for existing medical conditions in a consistent manner regardless of what the prescription is, I will absolutely support that. I recognize that a prescription which can be used for contraceptive purposes has other medical indications for treating existing medical conditions such as heavy or irregular menstruation, hormonal mood changes, growths on ovaries and others. I fully agree that a person seeking to treat such a condition should have their prescription covered in an identical manner as one who has been prescribed Viagra to address their medical condition. When prescribed to induce sterility, however, the prescription is not being used to treat a medical condition, it is being used to create one. Thus, equating the coverage of Viagra to address an existing medical condition and the coverage of contraception which is used to create a medical condition is an attempt to equate an apple with an orange.

Let me see if I can paraphrase what you said.

Insurance companies should pay for a prescription for a medical condition so that a man can participate in a voluntary sexual activity. Insurance companies should not pay for a prescription for a woman which can prevent a medical condition that is a result of that same voluntary sexual activity.

Is that about the sum of your opinion?

If one holds that fertility is an abnormal condition for a woman rather than a normal one that might be a fair summation of the opinion that was expressed. Is this the source of our disconnect Kate? Do you feel that fertility indicates that there is a medical problem which the medical community needs to address and fix if at all possible so that normal function, which would be infertility, can be restored?

Medical CONDITION, not problem. Your "logic" leaves me shaking my head.

The reason you are shaking your head is that your argument adopts a fungible definition for the term "medical condition" based upon what you wish it to mean. In the instance of the man and the Viagara, the prescription is to restore lost function of the body. In the case of the woman and her contraception it is to cause loss of function. That is why the comparison is apples and oranges. For the purposes of constructing a valid logical argument both the term and its definition must remain constant throughout.

Pregnancy is not a medical condition that can be equated with Erectile Dysfunction because pregnancy is not a dysfunction of the female body - it is an expected function. Sterility during reproductive years is a dysfunction. Heavy menstruation is a dysfunction, hormonal induced mood swings are a dysfunction, polyps on ovaries are dysfunctions - pregnancy is not a dysfunction. Contraception seeks to create dysfunction within the body by making one sterile when they otherwise would not be. Your analogy fails because in the one instance you are using the term "medical condition" to reference dysfunction and at the same time attempting to use that same term to describe normal function. Sorry Kate, that kind of logic should have you shaking your head as incomprehensible. Expected function in not a medical condition in the same manner as dysfunction is no matter how fast you attempt to spin it.

An edited instrumental version of The Pretenders' “My City Was Gone” has been Limbaugh's theme song almost continuously since the start of his show. Briefly in 1999, Limbaugh stopped playing the song while negotiating with the song's writer, Chrissie Hynde. Limbaugh now pays her one hundred thousand dollars per year,[3] which she donates to the animal rights organization PETA.[4]

Limbaugh recently discussed the process involved in selection of the "bumper music" (music clips at the beginning and end of segments transitioning to and from the show and paid advertisements) when a listener commented that artists like "The Pretenders" would not approve of the use of songs such as "My City Was Gone" as the band is decidedly liberal. Limbaugh mentioned that he selects music with some sarcasm taken into consideration. He also said that some bands had complained about his use of their music but since the "bumper music" clips he uses are less than 8 seconds the use of the music is legally considered "fair use".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show

No, Printsmith, the reason I am shaking my head is that you seem to think it's acceptable for a man to have his prescription paid by insurance for his erectile dysfunction, while a woman should not have insurance pay for her contraception. As you have pointed out so many times before, sex is an elective activity. It's either both prescriptions should be paid by insurance or none.

It's a double standard. You have to find some hair to split to twist your "logic and reason" to your preconceived conclusion.

Sorry that you can't see that.

FredHayek wrote: Actually NPR was talking about this concerning political campaigns using the music of artists who disagree with them. If the campaign is in a licensed BMI or ASCAP building, they can use it because of the license. Parking lot? Farm? Then they have to ask for permission.

But if the artist doesn't want you to use their music, stop using it and paying the haters. Play the tunes of musicians who agree with you.

Rush must have paid Chrissie Hynde a million dollars after 10+ years of playing her, "My City Is Gone".

Interesting about the Rush band refusal, Rush tradtionally tends to be a conservative band.

Just add "thief" to his list of accomplishments and personal attributes.

As I said Kate - one is to treat a dysfunction the other seeks to create a dysfunction within the human body. This is simply a matter of fact. There is no twisting necessary, no splitting of hairs is required to clearly see this as a matter of fact.

Yes, sex is an elective activity. It is a normal activity. The physical inability to engage in that elective activity is a different scenario from removing risks associated with engaging in the elective activity of which you are fully capable of. I am just as much against male contraception being paid for by insurance as I am female contraception being paid for by insurance - no double standard there at all. I promise you that when "The Male Pill" is available I will oppose insurance coverage for it as well because it too will be intended to create dysfunction.

You can't attempt to equate an apple with an orange and then complain when the obvious flaw in your premise is pointed out to you - you must compare an apple and an apple or an orange and an orange. I support insurance covering prescriptions to treat dysfunction in men and in women and oppose insurance coverage for willful creation of dysfunction. That is a single standard, not a double one. I do not support insurance coverage for either a vasectomy or tubal ligation for contraceptive purposes anymore than I support prescriptive contraception for either sex. The creation of a dysfunctional state is elective in nature and should be born by the person seeking to create dysfunction within their own body in every instance.

I support the insurance companies autonomy and freedom to assemble whatever coverage they want to include- and exclude anything they don't want to include in a given policy. If an insurance company wants to leave out contraception - they should be free to exclude it.

I don't want the government telling my insurance company what they should include or exclude in a policy. This should be the customers choice. I want to be able to choose from a varied list of policies- and choose what I want covered and avoid those policies that cover condoms and pap smears and all that other garbage that drives up insurance costs.

The answer for better more cost effective insurance and health care costs is to get the government out of the business of health care and let the free market offer a wide range of insurance products & options to us consumers. I do not want a government mandate that says insurance companies must cover this or that.

I believe that the health care mess started when insurance companies started to overstep the definition of insurance- (an unforseen medical circumstance). When these companies started to cover regular office visits, pap smears, yearly physicals, eye glasses etc. - they went far beyond what insurance was originally intended for.

Let me choose what policy I want- and what I want to be insured for- I want my government to stick to it's core functions- and a takeover of the health care industry is not a core function.

A condition can be defined as:

The current health situation of a patient.
A state of health or physical fitness.
A disease or physical ailment.
A state of being, specifically in reference to physical and mental health or well-being.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/condition

So, it is not just a "dysfunction," PrintSmith.