Sandra Fluke to run for Congress

[Clementine]

How many times will El Rushbo call her a slut and/or a whore this time around?

Probably a lot considering the exorbitant amount she claimed to spend on birth control in a short time.

 

[g5000]

People will vote for this stupid bitch. Sad really

She's a carpetbagger. That might have worked for Hillary on the Senate level, but Congressional races are different. I would be surprised if the voters of Waxman's district selected her over other politicians who have worked and lived in that district for much longer than her, and who are better known to them and their local needs.

I don't think she will survive the Democratic primary to become the nominee.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I can imagine her presser...

The reporters asking for her financials and how much she has actually spent on BC.. Her tax paperwork should be interesting.. Who all has been paying her...

 

[g5000]

How many times will El Rushbo call her a slut and/or a whore this time around?

Probably a lot considering the exorbitant amount she claimed to spend on birth control in a short time.

Better he says nothing at all. The more the Right attacks her, the more undeserved street cred she will gain in Waxman's blue district.

 

[bendog]

How many times will El Rushbo call her a slut and/or a whore this time around?

Probably a lot considering the exorbitant amount she claimed to spend on birth control in a short time.

Better he says nothing at all. The more the Right attacks her, the more undeserved street cred she will gain in Waxman's blue district.

I don't think the term carpet bagger is correct. It appears she's been a member of the CA bar since Dec. 2012, and she's employed at the LA office of the feminist majority organization.

But, the dems have more experienced candidates, that's for sure.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The good news for Sandy is, there are 435 members of the House, so there will be plenty of men to satisfy her with.

 

[bendog]

Do you guys even get laid occassionally w/o paying for it?

 

[g5000]

Do you guys even get laid occassionally w/o paying for it?

What business is that of the government? You either want the government out of our private lives, or you don't.

Pay an employee with cash. Nothing more. Then they have complete freedom to spend it as they wish without the government forcing part of their paycheck to go to things they did not ask for or need, and without the government getting to decide what an employer must or must not provide in the way of benefits.

Think about it. Totalitarians are demanding the government decide what you should receive in the form of pay and benefits for the job you do! Do you really want the government to have that depth of power? A complete government takeover of your paycheck?

It already takes big bites in taxes. Now they want the government to decide this much will go to this benefit, this much will go to that benefit, and whatever is left you can take home with you.

This is just plain nuts.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I can imagine her presser...

The reporters asking for her financials and how much she has actually spent on BC.. Her tax paperwork should be interesting.. Who all has been paying her...

Trojan ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Do you guys even get laid occassionally w/o paying for it?

Couple times a week for me.

 

[bendog]

Do you guys even get laid occassionally w/o paying for it?

What business is that of the government? You either want the government out of our private lives, or you don't.

I was referencing some of the comments as to Fluke's, and presumably other womens, sex lives.

Personally, I couldn't care less what people do. However, there is no rational basis to dispute that providing contraceptive care is one, if not the, most effective ways to reduce costs of healthcare in America. I'd agree with someone who said "mitt's a stool for suggesting we reduce public spending to save overall money, but maybe an employer mandate is stepping on the toes of those with religious beliefs."

 

[g5000]

Do you guys even get laid occassionally w/o paying for it?

What business is that of the government? You either want the government out of our private lives, or you don't.

I was referencing some of the comments as to Fluke's, and presumably other womens, sex lives.

Personally, I couldn't care less what people do. However, there is no rational basis to dispute that providing contraceptive care is one, if not the, most effective ways to reduce costs of healthcare in America. I'd agree with someone who said "mitt's a stool for suggesting we reduce public spending to save overall money, but maybe an employer mandate is stepping on the toes of those with religious beliefs."

More contraceptive use would lead to all kinds of public benefit. It would certainly reduce the number of abortions considerably.

But freedom is not painless. It comes with costs. However, the benefits outweigh the costs.

The government should in no way be deciding how your pay gets allocated outside of taxes.

 

[bendog]

What business is that of the government? You either want the government out of our private lives, or you don't.

I was referencing some of the comments as to Fluke's, and presumably other womens, sex lives.

Personally, I couldn't care less what people do. However, there is no rational basis to dispute that providing contraceptive care is one, if not the, most effective ways to reduce costs of healthcare in America. I'd agree with someone who said "mitt's a stool for suggesting we reduce public spending to save overall money, but maybe an employer mandate is stepping on the toes of those with religious beliefs."

More contraceptive use would lead to all kinds of public benefit. It would certainly reduce the number of abortions considerably.

But freedom is not painless. It comes with costs. However, the benefits outweigh the costs.

The government should in no way be deciding how your pay gets allocated outside of taxes.

I disagree a little bit. I think Obamacare is overbearing and overbroad, but since it is dem only law, that's to be expected. But, the concept of govt supporting workers getting HC doesn't seem conceptually different to a minimum wage, or a law requiring insurance compnaies cover mental as well as physical illnesses, or taking an even broader analogy, I don't see how universal care is conceptually different from clean air or water, because we all share an economic cost, but the economic benefit outweighs the cost without question.

Even Coburn supported using public dollars to set up pools for high risk folks and expanding medicaid.

 

[g5000]

I was referencing some of the comments as to Fluke's, and presumably other womens, sex lives.

Personally, I couldn't care less what people do. However, there is no rational basis to dispute that providing contraceptive care is one, if not the, most effective ways to reduce costs of healthcare in America. I'd agree with someone who said "mitt's a stool for suggesting we reduce public spending to save overall money, but maybe an employer mandate is stepping on the toes of those with religious beliefs."

More contraceptive use would lead to all kinds of public benefit. It would certainly reduce the number of abortions considerably.

But freedom is not painless. It comes with costs. However, the benefits outweigh the costs.

The government should in no way be deciding how your pay gets allocated outside of taxes.

I disagree a little bit. I think Obamacare is overbearing and overbroad, but since it is dem only law, that's to be expected. But, the concept of govt supporting workers getting HC doesn't seem conceptually different to a minimum wage, or a law requiring insurance compnaies cover mental as well as physical illnesses, or taking an even broader analogy, I don't see how universal care is conceptually different from clean air or water, because we all share an economic cost, but the economic benefit outweighs the cost without question.

Even Coburn supported using public dollars to set up pools for high risk folks and expanding medicaid.

I, too, support a pool for high risk people. Absolutely.

But I also believe we would have a lot more public resources available to help the truly and honestly needy if we got government out of where it does not belong.

 

[Redfish]

More contraceptive use would lead to all kinds of public benefit. It would certainly reduce the number of abortions considerably.

But freedom is not painless. It comes with costs. However, the benefits outweigh the costs.

The government should in no way be deciding how your pay gets allocated outside of taxes.

I disagree a little bit. I think Obamacare is overbearing and overbroad, but since it is dem only law, that's to be expected. But, the concept of govt supporting workers getting HC doesn't seem conceptually different to a minimum wage, or a law requiring insurance compnaies cover mental as well as physical illnesses, or taking an even broader analogy, I don't see how universal care is conceptually different from clean air or water, because we all share an economic cost, but the economic benefit outweighs the cost without question.

Even Coburn supported using public dollars to set up pools for high risk folks and expanding medicaid.

I, too, support a pool for high risk people. Absolutely.

But I also believe we would have a lot more public resources available to help the truly and honestly needy if we got government out of where it does not belong.

Is an able bodied man who has fathered 10 kids and takes responsibility for none of them "truly and honestly needy" ?

I believe that we should help those who are physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves, but everyone else should be responsible for their own welfare.

 

[bendog]

More contraceptive use would lead to all kinds of public benefit. It would certainly reduce the number of abortions considerably.

But freedom is not painless. It comes with costs. However, the benefits outweigh the costs.

The government should in no way be deciding how your pay gets allocated outside of taxes.

I disagree a little bit. I think Obamacare is overbearing and overbroad, but since it is dem only law, that's to be expected. But, the concept of govt supporting workers getting HC doesn't seem conceptually different to a minimum wage, or a law requiring insurance compnaies cover mental as well as physical illnesses, or taking an even broader analogy, I don't see how universal care is conceptually different from clean air or water, because we all share an economic cost, but the economic benefit outweighs the cost without question.

Even Coburn supported using public dollars to set up pools for high risk folks and expanding medicaid.

I, too, support a pool for high risk people. Absolutely.

But I also believe we would have a lot more public resources available to help the truly and honestly needy if we got government out of where it does not belong.

Imo we missed the opportunity to "give" working families w/o HC a tax credit per household member, who is not already covered by Schips, with the proceeds coming from the top .5% or so who typically own the equities in companies not providing the beneifts, as well as the taxes on the healthcare providers that are in Obambcare, and no taxes or mandates directly on employers or workers.

As for contraceptives, the insurance companies themselves were willing to pony up the cash because it is in their econ self-interest to limit unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Redfish]

I disagree a little bit. I think Obamacare is overbearing and overbroad, but since it is dem only law, that's to be expected. But, the concept of govt supporting workers getting HC doesn't seem conceptually different to a minimum wage, or a law requiring insurance compnaies cover mental as well as physical illnesses, or taking an even broader analogy, I don't see how universal care is conceptually different from clean air or water, because we all share an economic cost, but the economic benefit outweighs the cost without question.

Even Coburn supported using public dollars to set up pools for high risk folks and expanding medicaid.

I, too, support a pool for high risk people. Absolutely.

But I also believe we would have a lot more public resources available to help the truly and honestly needy if we got government out of where it does not belong.

Imo we missed the opportunity to "give" working families w/o HC a tax credit per household member, who is not already covered by Schips, with the proceeds coming from the top .5% or so who typically own the equities in companies not providing the beneifts, as well as the taxes on the healthcare providers that are in Obambcare, and no taxes or mandates directly on employers or workers.

As for contraceptives, the insurance companies themselves were willing to pony up the cash because it is in their econ self-interest to limit unwanted pregnancies.

OMG, the ignorance here is amazing.

Insurance companies do not "pony up cash" they raise the premiums on their policy holders.

Insurance companies have to balance income to expenses. If something increases their expenses (providing contraceptives) then they have to increase the amount collected from their policy holders.

Insurance companies do not make huge profits, mutual companies do not make any profit they give whatever is left back to their policyholders.

 

[bendog]

I, too, support a pool for high risk people. Absolutely.

But I also believe we would have a lot more public resources available to help the truly and honestly needy if we got government out of where it does not belong.

Imo we missed the opportunity to "give" working families w/o HC a tax credit per household member, who is not already covered by Schips, with the proceeds coming from the top .5% or so who typically own the equities in companies not providing the beneifts, as well as the taxes on the healthcare providers that are in Obambcare, and no taxes or mandates directly on employers or workers.

As for contraceptives, the insurance companies themselves were willing to pony up the cash because it is in their econ self-interest to limit unwanted pregnancies.

OMG, the ignorance here is amazing.

Insurance companies do not "pony up cash" they raise the premiums on their policy holders.

Insurance companies have to balance income to expenses. If something increases their expenses (providing contraceptives) then they have to increase the amount collected from their policy holders.

Insurance companies do not make huge profits, mutual companies do not make any profit they give whatever is left back to their policyholders.

The ignorance is truly amazing. It's beyond dispute that providing contraceptive care saves money in terms of overall spending, thus raising premiums would be unjistified, which is why insurors had not issue with contraceptive coverage.

 

[RoadVirus]

your party cant cheat enough to win this seat

Somebody whack TM upside the head. His/her needle is stuck in a groove again.

 

[RoadVirus]

Finally getting rid of Henry Nostrilitus, and looks like we'll get an even bigger handout lover.

Sandra Fluke to run for Henry Waxman's congressional seat

Sandra Fluke*is joining the long list of California Democrats running for*Rep. Henry Waxman's soon-to-be vacated Congressional seat.Fluke, the birth control advocate who Rush Limbaugh called a "slut" on his radio show in February 2012, has*filed the necessary paperwork to seek an endorsement from the California Democratic Party*for a run.The 32-year-old lawyer had said earlier in January that she was "strongly considering" making a bid for Waxman's seat, adding she was "flattered" that she was being discussed as a potential candidate.RELATED: CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC REP. HENRY WAXMAN TO RETIREFluke gained national attention for her testimony before Congress in 2012, when she advocated for health insurers to pay for contraception as part of the Affordable Care Act.Read more:*Sandra Fluke to run for Henry Waxman's congressional seat - NY Daily News

Sandra Fluke to run for Henry Waxman's congressional seat - NY Daily News

So The Fluke is officially throwing her whoring self into the ring, huh?

And her political experience is what again?