Limbaugh sponsor asks to come back

Even though many predicted this--who knew it would turn around so quickly! One of the companies that cancelled its advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show because of his comments about Sandra (I only use contraceptives for my "medical condition") Fluke has asked to be reinstated as an advertiser.

Sleep Train changed its mind, but unfortunately for them, Rush told them to take a hike.

Report: Company who dropped ads from Limbaugh’s show asks to be reinstated
POSTED AT 10:09 PM ON MARCH 8, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

Request denied.

A Limbaugh spokesman said that California mattress company Sleep Train asked to restart a “voiced endorsement” from Limbaugh that it had publicly cut off last week. The company said at the time that it “does not condone such negative comments toward any person.”…

Sleep Train’s departure from the program had been billed by some observers as particularly significant because the mattress retailer had been with Limbaugh show for 25 years. Yet the tone of Sleep Train’s withdrawal statement last Friday hinted it might not be pulling out for the long run…

Limbaugh spokesman Brian Glicklich on Thursday forwarded a copy of an email that he said had been sent to Sleep Train Chief Executive Dale Carlsen. In it, Glicklich wrote that Limbaugh had personally received the company’s requests to resume advertising on his show.

“Unfortunately,” Glicklich wrote, “your public comments were not well received by our audience, and did not accurately portray either Rush Limbaugh’s character or the intent of his remarks. Thus, we regret to inform you that Rush will be unable to endorse Sleep Train in the future.”

No votes yet

Sandra (I only use contraceptives for my "medical condition") Fluke
Really? Your just another willful ignorant who never bothered to listen to Fluke's testimony.

I listened to every word of Fluke's "testimony," and what I heard was a whiny coed who attends an extremely expensive school suggesting that the burden of paying for contraceptives must be shouldered by all of us through increased medical insurance premiums. I smell a Lifetime movie!

So you admit your original quote was wrong?

Covering birth control for all would actually make our insurance premiums go down because the cost of child birth is way more expensive.

Georgetown is a private school, no cost to the tax payer anyway.

Let's be clear, the vast majority of us pay and increasing portion of our health insurance costs with our employees paying, less and less as a percent. Why should an employer get to decide what is covered by something I pay for?

Sterilization would keep birth costs down, too. Then men and women could F**k like jackrabbits, to their hearts' content.

1. Contraceptives such as birth control pills have been covered by most insurance policies for at least 25 years that I am aware of--haven't seen premiums "go down because the cost of child birth is way more expensive."

2."Why should an employer get to decide what is covered by something I pay for?" If you are paying 100% of the cost of your health care, the employer shouldn't have a say. Has anyone suggested that should not be the case?

Let's focus on the point of all of this. Groups/companies/organizations that object to including contraceptives in their health care coverage due to religious reasons have had this freedom taken away by Obama. First, he said the group/company/organization must pay for this coverage, but then after the Catholic church objected to this; he amended this to say that the coverage still had to be offered, but the health insurace company would have to pay for it. Of course, this still takes away religious freedoms.

This is all part of Obama's plan for government control over every possible aspect of our lives--the cars we drive, the light bulbs we use, the food we eat, the topics taught in public schools, the health insurance we are required to have, etc., etc. If you like total government control of your life--Obama's the man for you!

The State of Texas and the U.S. government are in a dispute regarding Planned Parenthood in that state. Texas has been operating under a waver. That extreme liberal, Texas Governor Rick Perry, is upset because losing the Federal coverage risks the loss of the contraceptive program. According to the Governor's office, the contraceptive program saves Texas $57 million per year in additional costs associated with the additional births that would result without the contraceptive program.

Remember, America's medical system is the most expensive in the world. Medical costs and the cost of medical insurance have risen three or four times the overall rate of inflation in the last 20 years. No! We haven't seen our insurance premiums drop because of the coverage of contraception, but how much higher would hospitalization costs be with a few million more mothers and babies to care for over the past 20 years?

If the insurance companies which control our health care system weren't so greedy, America's medical care costs would be more in line with other industrialized nations, and maybe people could afford to pay for it themselves, as people could do when I was growing up in the 1950s. At current rates, maybe half of our workers could afford to pay their own insurance. Maybe half, maybe less than half.

The most successful economy of this century is that of Communist, Socialist China. China's health care is mostly primitive compared to that in the United States, but it's free! And it's getting better as they enrich themselves on the goods we purchase from them and the jobs they're getting from companies which closed in America and moved to China, because those companies were given tax breaks by W and the Republicans in Congress early in W's first term.

And with that you have totally countered you argument.

Planned Parenthood already receives funding for contraceptives. They are already available and they come at first priority to our lowest earners. Since college students make up the largest goup of unemployed between 18-25 then there is no reason why a woman like Ms. Fluke cannot get them.

Whole argument - gone.

MikeyA

Apparently the dispute betwen the State of Texas and the Fed is over a Texas law which makes it illegal for Planned parenthood to receive government funding. I just read the article. I don't pretend to be an expert on this disagreement. The statements by Perry and his administration are accurate. I guess they would know if they are going to lose money. Ask them.

The fact that Planned Parenthood is able to provide contraceptives to students goes against Ms. Fluke's testimony that they could not get them. Students can get them and they do not need the college to provide them.

The Texas/PP law has no impact on this argument because as it states, Planned Parenthood still provides the contraceptives there.

MikeyA

Hell if 0bamacare doesn't get tossed, eventually, employers won't be offering health care. They'll just let the government cover everyone.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

We have health care now, it's called "the emergency room".

I think she's the empowered woman that we keep hearing about from libs. She gets so much sex that most women don't get from any guy or gal. She's the envy of all women out there. Maybe she picks up guys (and gals?) like guys pick up women. Empowered like no woman has been empowered before. Sarcasm intended.

toledojim

"he amended this to say that the coverage still had to be offered, but the health insurace company would have to pay for it. Of course, this still takes away religious freedoms."

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read on this site all week. (and I've read several of Carrie Hunt's posts) It certainly does not take away anyone religious freedoms. What it does, is prevent certain religious types from imposing their beliefs on others. And that's to be commended.

Pink Slip

Remember, to the Christain Taliban, religious freedom is them imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

And how does their stance on contraceptives affect you then?

MikeyA

Dear lord-- you Obama lovers really have to have EVERYTHING spelled out or you.

Maybe an example will help.

Let's say I'm the priest who is the president of St. Edwards Catholic Hospital. I have 800 employees for whom the hospital provides health care. In accordance with Catholic religious policy, the health insurance we offer does not cover contraceptives. (If employees choose to use contraceptives, so be it--but the Church has a policy not to offer it.)

In comes the Obama administration telling us that we HAVE TO offer contraceptive coverage--including abortions! Since St. Edwards pays for 50% of its employees' health care premiums, the hospital now is forced to offer the coverage and pay for it.

St. Edwards joins all other Catholic organizations in becoming vocal about this so Obama holds a press conference announcing a "compromise." His "compromise" is that groups like St. Edwards still HAVE TO OFFER CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE EVEN IF IT'S AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS TENETS, but (here comes the "compromise") the health insurance company will have to foot the bill for the coverage.

When the government forces a religious group to go against its teachings--that's what is called "TAKING AWAY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM."

I have yet to see the language which would require the Catholic Church to cover abortion. Please advise. Where is that?

When religious organizations minister to the sick or hurt without compensation, as they have done for hundreds of years, they are carrying out their calling. When they open businesses that compete with privately owned companies, they are getting into areas which are not part of their religious calling. If this is such a problem, churches could sell their businesses to private providers and do so for a LOT of money!

The greater issue is the separation of church and state. Religious organizations receive huge amounts of government money in various forms, then say, "Don't make us play by your rules!" It's really quite elementary. If the chuches don't like government's rules, they shouldn't accept any government money. Many religious organizations do so.

"I have yet to see the language which would require the Catholic Church to cover abortion. Please advise. Where is that?" They consider the morning after pill to be abortion. Get it?

"When they open businesses that compete with privately owned companies, they are getting into areas which are not part of their religious calling." The new policy affects the Catholic Charities. How is that NOT a part of their religious calling?

"The greater issue is the separation of church and state. Religious organizations receive huge amounts of government money in various forms, then say, "Don't make us play by your rules!" It's really quite elementary. If the chuches don't like government's rules, they shouldn't accept any government money. Many religious organizations do so." This is a failure of your reading of the Establishment Clause.

What public schools existed in 1798? What religious schools? And the bulk of those public schools taught religious studies as well. Public Schooling was not widely practiced until the 20th Century. Ironically, hospitals are the same as well. If a community was lucky enough to have a hospital most times it was a religious group who founded it. Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries, of which always included a school and a hospital, located in California and New Mexico outdate not even the Country but The colony of Virginia.

MikeyA

Maybe I'm misremembering. Back in Colonial days, did charitable hospitals charge their patients and accept government payments for services rendered? How about religious schools? Did they accept government monies?

We now have public schools. We now have privately-owned and government-run hospitals. If religious organizations want to run schools and hospitals, they have every right to do so. If they accept government money, they must function under the same rules as any other business. Just because a school or a hospital is run by a non-profit organization, doesn't mean that each school or hospital so run does not turn a profit itself! Why not sell these assets and do only totally charitable works, without payment, with all volunteers? Let for-profit companies run businesses. Isn't this what free enterprise is all about?

"Maybe I'm misremembering. Back in Colonial days, did charitable hospitals charge their patients and accept government payments for services rendered? How about religious schools? Did they accept government monies?"

Now you're asking the right questions. No, they did none of these. Neither did non-religious doctors who provided services to a town, in fact, most of those selfless individuals died penniless.

So how did we get to where we are now? Well, the government started regulating medical care. Why? To make it better. So regulations always increase costs. So suddenly the town doctor couldn't afford to just trade a hog for delivering a baby. So, he went to work at a nearby startup hospital.

Now, a new doctor gets called in, he's had a few too many drinks one night, a malpractice situation happens. He loses his license and he and the hospital get sued. Now the hospital needs insurance. Because the hospital needs insurance the cost of care skyrockets. Because the cost of care skyrockets patients need health insurance. Because the cost of hospital insurance keeps driving up HC costs Health insurance costs keep rising. Suddenly people who choose to not use their pay increases to pay for health insurance want it paid for by everyone else. Because the government relents college students who would rather buy a 36 pack of beer for $24 than a 36 pack of condoms for the same price they suddenly believe they're owed that as well.

Note, for the same price beer companies are not struggling on college campuses despite those poor individuals.

Again just another sad situation where private charities and selfless people have been pushed out due to government regulation.

MikeyA

Doctors are still near the top of the list in NET income among professionals. Those who own their own practices and employ others are among our most successful small business entrepreneurs! You also imply that a drunk doctor should not be held accountable for the results of his/her actions. Law suits are only bad if they're not protecting you or me. If your parent, or spouse, or sibling, or child died at the hands of an incompetent or inebriated doctor, I'll bet you'd be contacting the best malpractice attorney you could find. And would any amount of money truly compensate you for your loss? This is part of the trend to have a "me" society instead of a "we" society.

Most hospitals today are owned and run by insurance companies. If you want a good investment, try one of the dozens of firms involved in the health care field in this country. One way I keep my head above water is by investing in these companies. Along with insurance companies there are pharmaceutical firms, firms which make and/or distribute medical devices, nursing home stocks, etc., etc.

The problem is, that the average person owes more in credit card debt than they have savings to invest. Too many live from paycheck to paycheck, and too many are working jobs where they have not had a raise in a decade. If I were still teaching in TPS, my take-home pay today would be less than it was a decade ago, because of wage freezes, wage concessions, and large increases in the contribution to health care. The average person really cannot afford the cost of medical insurance today.

In every other industrialized nation in the world, they have government-run health care. That relieves their businesses of this extra burden, and allows their businesses to compete more successfully on the world stage than can American businesses.

As for rationing of health care, WE HAVE THAT ALREADY IN THIS COUNTRY!! A friend of mine almost did not get a bone marrow transplant about two years ago because his insurance company called this decades-old precedure "experimental". The delay in getting coverage approved may have cost him his life!

We have a choice: government bureaucracy, or giant insurance company bureaucracy. Apparently, you would trust the current system with insurance bureaucrats making these sometimes life and death decisions. I don't!

Actually, since the insurance company is footing the bill they are the ones "offering" it--not the hospital. The hospital is removed from the equation--except for the bitching part, that is.

The hospital in this case is still able to preach their medieval ways unfettered.

Pink Slip

Rush should take every penny of the ad. money. Jet "A" is way up in price!

I'm sure this will all just blow over

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/12/442673/141-companies-advertisn...

Pink Slip

Now go and look-up all the sponsers and advertisers waiting in line to get on his show...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I agree DTOM.

If you think Rush will lose his show then you are sorely mistaken. Even in the rare cases like Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony where the shows were ended the personalities involved went elsewhere and the company that cancelled the show regretted it because they lost an established audience which is hard to build.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.