Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (647432)	3/10/2012 7:31:08 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572120

I now* believe that Rush was wrong in insulting Ms. Fluke.* Only now? LOL...you must be a joy to live with. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (647432)	3/10/2012 10:16:19 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572120

I don't believe there was any such gay woman friend who developed a tumor and sobbingly told her mother she could never give her the grandchildren she wanted so badly, because she was denied a birth control prescription. Sounds like a made-up sob story to me. BTW, though I'm not a Catholic, my understanding is therapeutic use of birth control for non-contraceptive reasons, is okay with them.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (647432)	3/10/2012 11:51:24 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572120

>> On the other hand, after reading the testimony by Sandra Fluke, I now believe that Rush was wrong in insulting Ms. Fluke. She was focusing her testimony on the usage of birth control pills being used to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome. I never thought Limbaugh was "right" -- but he is an entertainer and as such he can say what he wants to, just as do Letterman and Maher. The second part of her presentation did focus on using birth control pills for this purpose; the beginning of it was about contraception. If, in fact, they are concerned about treatment of illness this is easily dealt with. This is what medical coding is all about. When you have a contraceptive that is coded with a non-family-planning diagnosis, it is clear what it is for. 10 years ago I had a customer who was a gynecologic oncologist. He would, in some cases, use massive doses of medroxyprogesterone (AKA Depo Provera, a contraceptive) to treat certain cancers. Medicare refused to pay for this "contraceptive" for its patients. In the end, to get Medicare to pay for this, he had to either eat the cost of it or have the patient pay for it -- while commercial insurances routinely paid for it. Medicare probably would have, too -- if they had any rational system for appealing the charges. This argument has been going on for years. The federal government is and always has been the biggest offender when it comes to utilization review.