Jon Stewart Mocks Megyn Kelly: Contraceptive Coverage Same as Paid Maternity Leave
Of all the pathetic media defenses of Georgetown University law student and women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart on Monday might have mounted the silliest one.
During a lengthy segment about “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Gross” Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Show host also went after Fox News’s Megyn Kelly by hysterically claiming institutions paying for contraceptives is the same as employers paying for maternity leave (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
After playing clips of various pronouncements by Kelly concerning the absurdity of law students wanting others to pay for their contraceptives, Stewart said, “I understand Megyn Kelly doesn’t think the government or employers should ever be required to subsidize someone’s sex – unless…”
An August 8, 2011, clip was shown of Kelly talking about how the United States is “the only country in the advanced world that doesn’t allow paid, that doesn’t require paid maternity leave.”
After the clip, Stewart mocked, “You know where that maternity leave came from, right? Nine months prior, half a bottle of Chablis, DVD copy of ‘The Notebook,’ scented candles, hmm. If you took maternity leave, and employers were required to pay that for you, we paid for you to have sex.”
Yes, it’s comedy. But like much of what Stewart does, it’s also advocacy, as unpaid maternity leave depending on how much a woman makes could cost her and her family tens of thousands of dollars.
By contrast, as NewsBusters reported Sunday, a full month of birth control can cost as little as $9. This is saying nothing about the societal benefit of babies actually being able to spend some time with their mothers in the first few months of their lives.
But there’s potentially a larger point in Stewart’s attack on Limbaugh and Kelly: if Fluke were a conservative going to Congress and asking for her birth control to be covered, the Daily Show host and his crew would have savaged her.
They would have exposed the hypocrisy of a woman wanting contraceptive coverage going to a Jesuit institution that doesn’t do it.
They would also have had great laughs over her being a 30-year-old student because, you know, conservatives are all idiots.
Imagine, too, the chuckles at her carping and whining about not being able to afford contraception as she attends one of the most expensive law schools in the country costing over $50,000 a year.
That would have been a hoot as they depicted her as part of the 1 percent complaining about having to actually pay for her own contraception.
Then they would have talked about – to great laughs from the studio audience – condoms being available on the internet for as little as 10 cents each if she bought in bulk. Imagine the laughter that would have generated.
Next, Stewart would have shared with viewers that since 2007, Walmart and Target have been selling a month’s worth of birth control pills for only $9.
They would have had a riot over the fact that just three miles from Georgetown University, there’s a Target participating in this promotion.
In fact, they likely would have done what MRC-TV’s Corwin Parks did last week - sent a “reporter” to Georgetown to uncover just how easy to find – and cheap! – birth control is in the Georgetown area.
Yes, Sandra Fluke and her mock "testimony" before Congress was tailor-made for comedians like Stewart to have a field day with its absurdity.
But no. Because Stewart is a liberal shill, and he quite understands how this issue is helping his Party as well as the president he adores, he decided to support this 30-year-old women’s rights activist despite how inherently laughable her position is.
And this is why having been a huge fan of the Daily Show for years I stopped watching it in 2004.
This is not a comedy program, and hasn't been for approaching a decade.
This is a platform for Stewart and his staff to propagandize the nation under the rubric of satire with a large percentage of the viewers seeing it as their only source of "news" each day.
And folks wonder why the nation is so ill-informed.
(H/T Mediaite)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
WSJ had a brilliant article on self-funded insurance plans.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 10:26am.
Most large employers pay their employee benefit programs through a trust fund which they fund with cash in order to pay for employee and family/dependent health care expenses. These bills are often paid directly through an insurance company in an arrangement known as "ASO" or Administrative Services Only. Essentially, the insurance company really only processes the claims for services, pharmaceuticals, etc., and receives a fee JUST for that processing. The insurance carrier receives only enough funding to pay those bills and does not assume any financial liability for those bills itself. This is opposed to a full-risk contract, where the insurance company assumes every financial risk associated with covering a company's employees medical and health care expenses.
The ASO/self-funded accounts are huge in the business world, as they allow a company to provide benefits at a level that is competitive with other large employers or to adhere to the terms of labor contracts which may require coverage for things that are not normally covered under standard full-risk insurance contracts. The insurance companies act ONLY as claim agents and check writers and have no financial responsibilities other than those two functions in ASO contracts. About half of the large employers in the United States use ASO/self-funding mechanisms to pay for their employee benefits for multiple reasons, but primarily to contain costs by tailoring coverage precisely to the needs of their employees. A good many of these companies or groups using self-funded insurance plans include large Catholic health care systems and institutions who also use the ASO/self-funding mechanism to ensure their religious beliefs are covered by the terms of the plan.
Saying the "private insurance company" will pay for contraception in a self-insured plan is not only horrifically incorrect, it is an insult. A Catholic health care system that uses a self-funding mechanism will be directly paying those bills through the insurance company who carries their ASO contract. Similarly, a fully funded insurance plan covering a small Catholic non-church entity (e.g. a Catholic adoption agency) would likewise be hit with higher premiums so they would be paying indirectly. The abject stupidity of suggesting that the "insurance company will be paying for it" is appalling. Whether it be a direct expense or an increase in premium, the Catholic church and its related institutions serving its mission will be adversely financially affected.
Obama and his mob knows the idiots in the mainstream press (without business credentials like WSJ) may fall for that line of bullcrap, but none of us in health care do.
The thing is
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 10:35am.
is that Catholic institutions pay their employees in money. The people can use that money to fund all kinds of immoral acts that the Church can frown upon. The Church having a "moral objection" is bogus.
The issue of cost is an important one. Fluke's testimony was about the health benefits of Birth control (specifically, to treat ovarian cysts). Perhaps those pills are more expensive? Your links don't make it clear.
And I'm not sure why you keep mentioning condoms. No one is talking about condoms. And if you keep bringing up condoms, you are intentionally getting the story wrong.
A little out of my normal character...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:26am.
...but I'm otherwise fed up with all of this garbage. I have never heard of a more glib argument than this.
I was going to say "you are an idiot" for posting such nonsence, but my conscience got the better of me, thus the edit. I take it back.
Rather than simply saying "you are an idiot", I'll just simply demonstrate how idiotic your argument really is.
First, how the church pays it's employees is not the issue. What the employee does with the income they earn is their business. The issue is the church cannot be seen delivering a service that goes against the very thing it teaches against. I just can't understand why this simple point escapes you, other than to conclude that you are in fact an idiot.
Secondly, you must be aware that contraception is widely available at very affordable cost to the user. No one is advocating banning contraception, however it isn't a right for women to have contraception paid for by the employer either. The church cannot stop people from doing anything immoral, but obviously you haven't heard the metaphor "that which is Ceaser's..." have you?
Thirdly, at least some forms of contraception are known carcinogens. (in other words, they can cause cancer) Why would the church participate in distributing something they teach is harmful spiritually as well as corporially? That is a rhetorical question, my freind, just in case you didn't get the subtlety.
If they were to do this, you'd start labelling the church as hypocrites. It's a no-win with liberals on this issue, isn't it? Again, another rhetorical question. Save yourself the trouble.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Gee
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 1:57pm.
thanks for not calling me an idiot.
The Church pays money, money can be used for evil. The Church is an accomplice. Just like if they pay for an insurance plan that includes services they don't agree with. Why should employees of the church not have the right to choose what treatments they get? After all, the Church is ok with Viagra. Why not birth control?
Some birth control is expensive, hence why the hearing took place. Do you think all pills are exactly the same?
These decisions are to be made between the patient and the doctor. Not the Church, and not the Government. But you want the Church, the Employer, to decide what treatments their employees should get? Why?
Why have a health plan at all, then?
Your argument is puerile at best.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:59pm.
What medium is the church to use for paying its employees, many of whom are not Catholic or Christian? Fish? Perhaps vouchers to a company store like some 19th century coal mining company town in the Appalachians? Money is the only legal tender in which they can pay their employees, and the idea that the church is enabling bad choices in any way, shape or form by those employees does not stand up to logic. That is like holding a power tool manufacturer responsible for someone who uses its tools to break into a bank vault.
Don't try arguing the value of oral contraception with me, as I use them infrequently to treat female patients with highly resistant forms of hormonally-linked depression.
Nobody is arguing about the availability of contraception. Most of the forms remain approved by the FDA and available over the counter or very cheaply in generic form. The point is the government should not be mandating free contraception for all because everyone will have to pay for what only a few might use. As for employers deciding what treatments their employees should get--where have you been the last sixty years? Since the advent of self-funded insurance plans, employers have been using the power of co-pays, deductibles and coverage exclusions to do precisely that. The government tells pilots, military, police and fire departments and all other manner of public employees what medications they can and cannot take. The unions and other labor groups that sponsor active employee and retiree coverage do the same. Either you don't know a thing aboutt insurance or you have been reading the liberal blogs too much. Government also tells we physicians what we can and cannot recommend to patients through medical practice regulations, defining standards of care and practice and approval or rejection by regulatory agencies of drugs, medical devices and medical equipment.
Birth control is necessitated by an action which is purely voluntary. The use of contraceptive agents for other therapeutic uses is an entirely different matter. Most Catholic and other religious institutions have built-in rules for exceptions, and that is one of them. Not every woman needs the most expensive birth control pills on the market, particularly when the newer agents show few, if any, advantages over more established generic products.
Condoms are not birth control?
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:21am.
Secondly, birth control pills are not the only treatment for ovarian cysts; often they go away on their own. And, in most insurance plans, if one medication (birth control pills are not medication for ovarian cysts either, they're used to mitigate the possibility of occurrence or re-occurrence in some cases) is not approved, often another is.
Its true
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 2:00pm.
Condoms and birth control pills are not the same thing. Look it up.
Is your health plan "Hey, don't take medicine, I'm sure your disease will go away on its own."?
Do you not know what the word "treatment" means?
Okay Van, you're dumber than I thought.
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:59pm.
I'm gonna type this real slow now, see if you can keep up.
I never said birth control pills and condoms were the same thing. They are both, however, methods of birth control. As is abstinence, by the way, which costs absolutely nothing. I wonder how you'd feel (well, not you in particular; I have serious doubts as to you being either old enough to need birth control, or intelligent enough to figure out what it's used for) if the government mandated abstinence? Do you know what abstinence is? Here, this might help you understand. (← click the orange text.) Hopefully this isn't over your head.
As for ovarian cysts. But first: The way we're able to have this conversation is through a magical invention by Al Gore called the internet. Say it with me: in-ter-net. Very good. Now, on the internet, you can do something called, research. The orange letters above are an example of said research. Since you probably didn't know what abstinence meant, you can go to the link (the orange letters are called a "link") and learn, or research the subject. I do want to caution you though, the more you learn, the less likely you'll remain a progressive. So, check with Media Matters or your mommy before doing too much research.
So, back to the cysts. By going on the internet, I was able to learn -before my previous comment- that in fact, ovarian cysts often need no treatment at all. They're quite common, you see. You can go here (← another "link") and explore this for yourself. (Now we're having fun!) Here's the relevant part:
We can go on here, and I can embarrass you further, or you can try the research thing I mentioned above and learn for yourself.
Thanks for the research
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 4:37pm.
"
Longer term use may decrease the development of new ovarian cysts."
I think we're done here.
I guess you had someone read that to you.
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 5:27pm.
Ask them to read the next sentence.
Dumb as a box of rocks is no way to go through life, young lady.
Indeed....
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 5:32pm.
because the word "MAY" is always indicative of a scientific final result with absolutely no chance of being incorrect.
Nice try, Braindamage.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 4:05pm.
Condoms are used to prevent transmission of STDs across the sexually active population who choose to use them, but the efficacy of a condom is measured precisely by its ability to prevent pregnancy and not prevent disease. The simple reason is that there are some significant sexually transmitted diseases which cannot be fully prevented by proper condom use. Chancroid (Haemophilus ducreyi), Papilloma viruses and some forms of virulent Herpes simplex are not stopped by a condom. Neither are all condoms equally capable of preventing disease, such as the lambskin condoms. The precise language used in FDA literature for condoms refers to their ability to prevent pregnancy and not disease. The standards for their manufacture are based on old fashioned he/she heterosexual intercourse, not on other uses.
Do not try to play the medical scientist.
Doc Sam
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 4:09pm.
Van Damage is an EXPERT at sex....I googled "Van Damage"....guess what?
PORN STAR!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Stewart is hiding his own misogyny
Submitted by frank14 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 5:35pm.
http://theweek.com/article/index/204404/does-the-daily-show-have-a-probl...
Again, the Left avoids the real issues
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 10:34am.
If the RCC offers paid maternity leave to its employees, that does not violate their religious conscience. Paying for contraceptives does.
While I am against it on principal, a government mandate that employers provide paid maternity leave can be equated to requiring them to contribute to Medicare on the behalf of their employees.
The Big Government leftists play both sides of the net. On the one hand, they want women to have the freedom to prevent and terminate pregnancies at everyone else's expense. On the other hand, they need the people to make future taxpayers in order to keep the entitlement Ponzi scheme viable.
Western & northern Europe, being a bit further down the path to socialism, is already experiencing the cataclysm caused by the inversion of these two contrary issues. Low birth rates are contributing to the collapse of the social programs (See Greece, Italy, Spain, et al). Norway introduced very generous maternity leave benefits in order to encourage Norwegian women to have children, even out of wedlock.
The Democrats naturally point to European programs as model for us, while deliberately avoiding any discussion on what's going on over there.
But why should it?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:00am.
Why should contraceptives be considered immoral?
Married couples who don't want children use it too. Why not make things available, and let people decide whats right for them?
Social programs are in danger precisely because less people are choosing to have children (except, of course, for Hispanics). White America is dying out. We will need to hope and pray that Brown America helps us.
⇒ It's not for us to say, VD
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:17am.
You can certainly ask the question, but you really don't have the right to strip a religion of its longstanding right of conscience.
I was certainly free to leave the Catholic Church if I disagreed with its teaching. So I did.
But I do believe the RCC has a right to refuse complicity in a practice with which it morally disagrees.
Umm.. They are available
Submitted by averageschmoe on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:23am.
Yes, I believe they are available. Just don't ask force groups to pay for them.
Contraceptives are not available?
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:25am.
Do you read the stuff you type before you hit "Save", or is this just some robotic effort by a Media Matters foot soldier? You're embarrassing yourself.
Wait.
Are you Sandra Fluke?
BK, in due time........
Submitted by Tomorama on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:53am.
The poster can't be Ms Fluke, there is no camera present and nobody had been propositioned or should I say THREE of us have not been propositioned yet.
Give her "time".
"White America is dying out.
Submitted by forest on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 12:05pm.
"White America is dying out. We will need to hope and pray that Brown America helps us."
Do you think everyone who is not 100% European in background wants to be arrogated into the "brown" category by you to be pitted against "White America"? Some people would rather just be Americans. I know racial divisiveness and the "one drop rule" are traditional Progressive/Democrat racist dogma, but you should reconsider the mindset unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself.
Too late for that forest
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 1:34pm.
This poster demonstrates everything that is wrong with liberalism.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
VD reading used to be fundamental
Submitted by Tomorama on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 11:52am.
Realizing "what" you are, you realize that ALL forms of birth control be it the pill or condoms are available in many different avenues and NOT for the 3000 price tag this activist is spewing.
Did she not know of the setforth health care "rules" that this institution abides by before DECIDING to go there?
The Republicans rightfully so called this an attack on religious freedoms, but then the media wh&&&s with the Obysmal cabal are now calling it an attack on women.
Heaven (can I write that??) forbid we talk about REAL issues that effect all of us, bravo to Obysmal for purposefully changing the subject but then it is easy IF you have the media being tweeted their instructions.
50,000 a YEAR, but she can't afford $9 a month or uh, uh, uh, uh have the boyfriend(s) pitch in for some condoms every once in a while?
~I can't agree with Kelly
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 12:54pm.
if she really did complain that the US doesn't force companies to provide paid maternity leave. Doing so would actually make it harder for women to get jobs in the first place, since the employer would have to take into account the possibility that this woman may get pregnant and end up being a huge drain on the company as she gets paid to sit at home while not producing any revenue for the company.
Getting paid to sit at home, don't we call that welfare and unemployment?
If you're going to talk about the societal benefits of a child getting all that motherly attention in it's first few months, well, how much more would that child benefit from having all that motherly attention for it's entire childhood?
So companies or the
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 2:07pm.
So companies or the government should only pay for things that otherwise put people out a lot of money?
~That's what insurance is for
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 2:28pm.
.
Not sure that's true.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:33pm.
Not sure that's true.
~People purchase insurance
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:44pm.
to cover potential medical costs that would be more than they can pay out of pocket.
Exactly right. Insurance has
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:47pm.
Exactly right. Insurance has been turned into another "right" by the left to provide people with whatever they want whenever they want it.
Or any other kind of risk, for that matter
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:57pm.
That's why I have auto insurance, flood insurance and windstorm insurance. Because I can't afford to replace my car if it's totaled, nor my house if a hurricane blows it down.
But apparently, that concept is too difficult for the left to comprehend. Insurance mitigates risk. If you want to mitigate ALL risk (regardless of what it is), you'll have to pay a higher premium. If one is willing to take on some of that risk, personally (as in paying for regular care, co-pays, or high deductibles), then premiums go down. But the left apparently believes 100% risk mitigation is a RIGHT....which someone else should pay for.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde. . "preventative" car and homeowner's insurance
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 4:41pm.
Yep, was looking at my roof, some of the paint on the soffits showing some signs of age - a little cracking going on there - and I was thinking, termites could be in there. So . . I think I'll call up my homeowners insurance company and ask them to paint, re-roof and to tent my home - as a preventative measure. Surely, this would lower the long term risk of a catastrophic fire, and/or water damage from a storm. And certainly, as this is so important, I should not have to pay any co-pays, and the deductibles should not apply.
Come to think of it, that car is looking like a new paint job is in order, and if I don't get the struts replaced rather soon, I might loose control of my car while driving, thereby posing a risk to all of society.
Call me to a committee hearing - this is going to be fun.
(;~/ gary
Yep....that paint job will sure help in a fire
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 4:51pm.
But hey, I'm sure your as much of an expert in home ownership than Fluke is on co-ed sexual habits at Georgetown. (Although I hesitate to call a 30 year old a co-ed).
We can get someone to call you a slut, and then you'll be famous!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 5:12pm.
Hmm. . . turning 60 in a couple of weeks. Being called a slut at my age(?). . well, I'll have to eat more Wheaties. Weeeeeeee.
(;~> gary
Okies, we'll change that to
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 5:48pm.
"aspiring" slut.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yeah but it's used for things
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 6:12pm.
Yeah but it's used for things you can afford, too.
Stewart
Submitted by mmilesll on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 2:51pm.
This guy is just NOT funny and why some think he is is way beyond normal. He thinks he's funny and therefore he is? Wrong. Kelly is so much smarter than this clown ever has been.
Funny thing
Submitted by mandrake on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:10pm.
I just checked that interweb thingey. Seems that the 'Daily Show' has been on the air since 1996. How does a show that is not popular stay on the air that long? Could it be that anything YOU disagree with is by definition 'not funny'?
He never said it wasn't popular.
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:39pm.
He said he couldn't understand WHY people think he's funny and that he doesn't find him funny. That's a perfectly legitimate point of view. Could it be that anything YOU disagree with is wrong?
well actually
Submitted by mandrake on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 3:44pm.
anything my wife disagrees with is wrong.