Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Cut Diseases, Cancer, Health Care Costs — Without Spending A Dime

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/03/03

Many disease rates could be dramatically cut without spending a dime. Some cancer rates could be mildly cut without spending a dime. And should that happen, health care costs would automatically be cut — without spending a dime. And how would that be accomplished? It’s rather simple, really. And it involves doing something the radical Leftists absolutely despise. You just have to do two things:

  • Call a slut a slut.
  • Call a whore a whore.

If you (and the culture as a whole) do these two things, the rates of AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis, chlamydia, herpes, vaginal infections would automatically fall, some precipitously. And health care costs would also fall, as would the cost for health insurance, since health insurance premiums are based on *gasp* health care costs! Imagine that, expenses based on costs! Something the radical Left absolutely fails to understand (among almost everything else the radical Left is incapable of understanding, since they eschew logic and embrace emotionalism). And it won’t cost you a dime to do that. It also won’t cost the Government a dime for that cost reduction, as the Government would stay out of it entirely.

And since rectal cancer, cervical cancer and sexual activity have correlations, those two cancer rates would also drop. Further, since “the Pill” has inherent breast cancer risks, the rate of breast cancer would also drop. Again, without costing one thin dime to make those cancer rates drop. All it takes to make some forms of cancer less prevalent is:

  • Call a slut a slut.
  • Call a whore a whore.

MadisonConservative wrote an article in Hot Air’s Green Room (where Patterico’s Pontification’s Karl posts) entitled Social conservatism and small government: are they incompatible?. The title incorporates a “you understood” false premise and a “you understood” false dichotomy fallacy: Social Conservatism must be for Big Government. The article itself is full of false premises and false dichotomies.

Let’s explain just a little about how Social Conservatism works and how it shrinks Government, within the parameters of this topic, shall we? If we do like we did from the 1950s and prior, and make sluts and whores pariahs, what would that do for society’s ills? And what would that do to the size of Government?

As a society, we don’t need Government defining a slut or a whore. We only need society calling out slutty behavior and whoring behavior for what it is, and vocally making people who engage in those behaviors into pariahs. No Government involvement is necessary. And what would that do? What would society as a whole returning to a far more Socially Conservative mindset do? It would cause people to decide they don’t want to be called sluts and whores, thereby causing those people to be less willing to engage in slutty or whoring behaviors. And that would cause fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies, fewer diseases, fewer cancer cases. And that would cause fewer Government dollars being spent on health care for the sluts and whores, fewer Government dollars being spent on health care for the children of sluts and whores, fewer Government dollars being spent on food for the children of sluts and whores, fewer Government dollars being spent on housing for sluts and whores and for the children of sluts and whores, fewer Welfare recipients, fewer Medicaid recipients, and more actual income tax payers, resulting in a major shift in cost-revenue spectra.

But the PC police absolutely refuse to allow the public to call a spade a spade. As I’ve said before, if you have to put a word in front of “correct”, you are, by definition, changing something which is factually incorrect into something that is, well, societally acceptable but still incorrect.

I have a great deal more I could say but as of the most recent above paragraph, I have already used over 600 words, and I’m far more lazy than necessary, I need to cut this short. Else, I could very easily have a 60,000-word article that few would read in its entirety. But what led to this article? Rush Limbaugh calling a slut who wants to become a whore a slut, and the unhinged radical Leftist utterly hypocritical backlash that caused.

For more information, read:
Solving the Contraception ‘Crisis’ by Laura Curtis

There is no contraception crisis. Contraception is already easily and inexpensively accessible in the United States. But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend there is. Obama’s solution to this pseudo-problem is to try to force all employers, including religious employers, to have insurance policies which provide for birth control methods to be provided at no direct cost to the patient. This is a serious erosion of our right to free exercise of religion.

Contraception mandates and religious freedom acts: the right and wrong of Rick Santorum by MadisonConservative

When the Obama Administration announced new rules requiring all employers, including religious organizations, to provide health insurance plans that included contraception coverage, I really wondered if he had just given up and was now intentionally trying to piss people off. I knew nobody on the right would be happy with it, and predicted that quite a few on the left would wonder what he was thinking. It was a foregone conclusion, however, that Rick Santorum would leap onto this like a starving jaguar with a t-bone. Now, I’ve made my qualms with Rick Santorum well known on this site, but this is one case where I strongly agreed with him, and not solely based on the principle of religious freedom.

While I do believe that this case does, in fact, infringe on the rights of religious organizations whose employees and employers oppose contraception on religious grounds, I also oppose the notion purely from an employers’ rights standpoint. I see no reason why any employer should be forced to provide health insurance plans including contraception coverage…

Why Rick Santorum doesn’t owe us a “contraception speech” by J E Dyer

I decided to watch from the beginning (in spite of the awful audio quality). Out of context, Santorum’s remarks sound like he might have a plan to “fight contraception” the way Democrats always want to fight something: that is, outlaw it, impose fees and penalties on it, sue the bejeebers out of it in court, sic the IRS and all the other federal agencies and commissions on it, demonize it in the media, teach children in the public schools that it is associated with hate, racism, violence, and fascism, and make movies in which the left’s point of view about it is validated by George Clooney.

But in context, it turns out that Santorum has no plan to do anything with federal law other than ensure that ObamaCare is repealed and that federal money is not used for contraception or abortion. (Federal money is currently used to fund both.) …

Democrat hypocrisy on religious liberty by Karl

Juicebox mafioso Matt Yglesias tweeted: “Newfound GOP enthusiasm for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws seems dangerously close to sharia.” [He was also one of countless Liberals absolutely celebrating Breitbart’s death.] There is an interesting point there, although Yglesias manages to get it almost completely backward.

He ought to know he went astray, based on his very next tweet directing readers to Justice Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, which ruled that while states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. Yglesias failed to mention the Smith decision prompted calls for a statutory restoration of prior case law, which was generally understood to require various exemptions for religious liberty. Smith was decided in 1990, so the enthusiasm for religious exemptions is not “newfound.”

Contraception mandate: MSM stuck in “narrative capture”? by J E Dyer

My first thought was, “Surely the Journal knows better than this. Why would they headline this story as if Obama had, in fact, backed off on the mandate? What are they, USA Today?”

The headline doesn’t reflect reality.

As Ed Morrissey pointed out yesterday, Obama has merely shifted the basis for the mandate. The insurance companies – I use that term loosely – will be required to provide “free” contraception services to the insured who work for Catholic employers. This means that the premiums paid by Catholic employers will fund contraception services. And the overall mandate to purchase the insurance will continue.

Poll on role of religion in Americans’ lives bad news for Obama by Howard Portnoy

This can’t be very good news for the president, who views religion as at best a bully pulpit for social change (as evidenced by his 20-year association with the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and at worst as a force with the potential to poison the minds of leaden-eyed, gun-toting “clingers.”

Yeah, I know, on Friday he made an impassioned mini-speech about religious liberty and said that “as a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.” He says lots of things that are politically expedient.

But the firestorm over Contraceptiongate, which raged out of control for a week before the administration attempted half-heartedly to dampen the flames, reveals how tin an ear our president has when it comes to the role of religion in the lives of Americans.

WH spokeswoman cites ‘98 percenters’ in defense of contraception rule by Howard Portnoy

But the most telling part of the interview comes in Cutter’s claim that “98% of Catholic women have taken it. The debate on this is over.”

Mediaite’s Nano di Fino observes that Cutter is likely misquoting a poll that states that 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control in some form.

Even if Cutter’s claim were accurate, her assertion would be tantamount to saying that the religious convictions of 772,000 Americans (2% of 38.6 million) are necessary casualties of ObamaCare. With some finessing that can certainly make a neat bumper sticker.

And here is where that 98 percent number the radical Leftists are touting comes from! I got news for you, radical Leftists like Perry Hood of the State of Delaware: The “rhythm” method is, indeed, a form of birth control Catholics use! So, your “98 percent of all women use birth control” meme is absolutely dead to me. Because you, lemming-like, copied various people who copied various people who misquoted a poll of people who would consider “rhythm” to be “a form of birth control” to derive your “98 percent” nonsense.

If You Don’t Like Slut As A Title For Sandra Fluke, How About Czar? by Smitty

In the annals of sluttiness, the Sandra Fluke story is some form of higher-order prostitution. Let’s call it politics. …

ObamaCare Was Never Other Than A Wrecking Ball by Smitty

One of the mistakes we frequently make with the Left is to give them the benefit of the doubt. To consider that they argue in good faith. ObamaCare was never intended to build anything useful. Which is why a diabolically evil person like Kathleen Sebelius can offer an economically nonsensical argument about paying for programs through cratering the tax base.

What Do You Call a Woman Who Is So ‘Sexually Active’ That She Needs More Contraception Than She Can Afford? UPDATE: Is Sandra Fluke a Fraud? by RS McCain

Apparently, the old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon word “slut” won’t do [I refuse to link to pollutico if I can help it, link in original]

In a predictable MMFA-led tactic, the Left has gone after Limbaugh’s advertisers. Limbaugh is amazed by the ridiculous uproar

This is your gov’ment on sex by William A Jacobson

It’s all coming together this week, the absurdity of the entitlement state where everything must be subsidized:

Something missing from Georgetown Law’s condemnation by William A Jacobson

Here’s what was missing:

We believe firmly in the rights protected by the First Amendment, and by appearing before a congressional panel Ms. Fluke was fulfilling “the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Yet the First Amendment contains other protections, and starts with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”

While we defend Ms. Fluke’s right to appear before Congress, we also defend the right of Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States, to be free from laws of Congress prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and we condemn Ms. Fluke for advocating the use of the police powers of the state to trample on religious freedom in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Sandra Fluke is not a “slut.” She’s a femme-agogue tool; DCCC, Emily’s list fund-raise off of Rush by Michelle Malkin

My two cents: Yes, we’re seeing the usual left-wing double standards when it comes to defending women against sexist putdowns. The language Rush used is completely unacceptable…except when it’s used against the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, myself, and every other prominent female conservative in public life, of course.

I’ll tell you why Rush was wrong. Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a “slut.” She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.

There are quite a few more sources and quotes that are useful in showing a Social Conservative position, lambasted by radical Leftists like the entire Democrat Party leadership, “SocLib/FisCon” types, and others, is actually far more fiscally conservative and far safer for the general public than is the “free sex, just everyone has to pay for you to be the ride, whether they ride you or not” position of any and all Liberals.

2 Responses to “Cut Diseases, Cancer, Health Care Costs — Without Spending A Dime”

  1. […] I wasn’t going to Cross-Post this for various reasons, but changed my mind. Filed under Barack Obama, Conservative, […]


  2. AOTC said

    i had another thought about all this. i think i understand why they picked a fight with us about sex.

    i wonder if we are being manipulated, drawn in to an argument that has little to do with the real evil that is lurking. this whole ‘sexual morality’ argument is really a cover for a much bigger issue. there is an alinsky tactic being used here. and it is being used for cover. cover for a grotesque truth of what they really are at the core, not merely proponents of sexual moral failures, but something much more. i am speaking from a christian standpoint. also, mankind is a political animal, and referencing our discussion about him on the other thread also being a religious one as well. this all fits regardless. i cant explain it but i will quote some text that i hope will paint a picture for you and explain what i am trying to say.

    ( i think this excerpt is small enough for the blog rules)

    “””” I now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals. There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves. I have heard people admit that they are bad-tempered, or that they cannot keep their heads about girls or drink, or even that they are cowards. I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice. And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone, who was not a Christian, who showed the slightest mercy to it in others. There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.

    The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

    It is a terrible thing that the worst of all the vices can smuggle itself into the very centre of our religious life. But you can see why. The other, and less bad, vices come from the devil working on us through our animal nature. But this does not come through our animal nature at all. It comes direct from Hell. It is purely spiritual: consequently it is far more subtle and deadly. “”” CS Lewis -Mere Christianity


    they [leftist ideologues,] will engage us about sexual morality, because almost all of human beings fail at this. if not in letter, at least spirit of the law and many will be sympathetic in their enabling softsoap about it. [they ] will never engage about the matter of pride. never. you can bet on it. what is more prideful that putting oneself above god?

    ironically this matter of pride is the exact same snare those of us who put our faith in god will always have to fight against as well. doubly.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: