As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

15455575960

Posts

  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2009
    Corbius wrote: »
    So, I made the mistake of reading some comments on that story, and was reminded that I have never understood the hate some people seem to have for Nancy Pelosi. Is it just "woman in position of power wwarrraagghable" or what?

    that's pretty much it

    Rust on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Corbius wrote: »
    So, I made the mistake of reading some comments on that story, and was reminded that I have never understood the hate some people seem to have for Nancy Pelosi. Is it just "woman in position of power wwarrraagghable" or what?

    also that she isn't attractive enough for them

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    wrote:
    I don't know what's scarier, whether NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions actually believes women are second class citizens or whether he believes it's political beneficial for the NRCC to say so.

    I really like that line, and it kind of mirrors how I feel. I mean seriously, even if you thought women should be back in the kitchen how retarded would you have to be to say women's healthcare shouldn't be covered? I'm assuming it's just a desperate attempt to ensure that abortion doesn't get covered, but it's still stupid.

    Cervetus on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Corbius wrote: »
    So, I made the mistake of reading some comments on that story, and was reminded that I have never understood the hate some people seem to have for Nancy Pelosi. Is it just "woman in position of power wwarrraagghable" or what?

    She's the person in the Speaker's chair. The opposition leader is pretty much automatically evil incarnate. Standard procedure, really. Pick any random Democrat, stick them in the Speaker's chair or make them Senate Majority Leader, and you'll get pretty much the same thing.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    You're aware that I fabricated those quotes, right?

    Carrot was a liberal plant all along! He feared the momentum of the conservative movement and tried to sabotage their efforts with lies!

    Lies!

    So he's both Stephen Colbert and a liberal plant?

    Noice

    Rent on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    Corbius wrote: »
    So, I made the mistake of reading some comments on that story, and was reminded that I have never understood the hate some people seem to have for Nancy Pelosi. Is it just "woman in position of power wwarrraagghable" or what?

    She's the person in the Speaker's chair. The opposition leader is pretty much automatically evil incarnate. Standard procedure, really. Pick any random Democrat, stick them in the Speaker's chair or make them Senate Majority Leader, and you'll get pretty much the same thing.

    Absolutely correct, it's just that when you belong to a party that is traditionally non-supportive (and a lot of times demeaning) of women and their rights, the question of whether or not your criticism of a woman in a leadership role is based out of misogynistic beliefs instead of a difference of opinion is not easily determined.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    To be fair, don't women get more out of health insurance then men? He could have had more tact when stating it, certainly, but it's still a revelent factor in determining cost of coverage.

    jothki on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    Pete Sessions, come on down.
    Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), the head of the Republicans campaign committee, caused a stir at last night's Rules Committee meeting when he suggested that treating female-related health conditions was comparable to insurance-company imposed restrictions on smokers.

    "Why should a woman pay more than a man?" asked New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone, according to the Courthouse News Service.

    "Well, we're all different," Sessions explained. "Why should a smoker pay more?" he said before interrupted.

    That prompted major pushback from Democrats, who say that it proves that House Republicans don't care about working-class women.

    “The NRCC and extreme right wing of the Republican Party are totally out of step with women," said Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    "First, the NRCC says that a man ought to put the first woman Speaker of the House ‘in her place.' ...I don't know what's scarier, whether NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions actually believes women are second class citizens or whether he believes it's political beneficial for the NRCC to say so."

    I really can't believe I'm saying this but I somewhat agree with Sessions, considering young people have to pay more than older people for less health insurance. This reverse pyramid that is our health insurance industry is part of the reason we're in this mess in the first place

    Basically what I'm saying is is people should pay their fucking share. Old people should pay more, smokers (which I am one of) should pay more, pregnant women should pay more, etc

    Rent on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    jothki wrote: »
    To be fair, don't women get more out of health insurance then men? He could have had more tact when stating it, certainly, but it's still a revelent factor in determining cost of coverage.

    Much of this has to do with men being less likely to make use of health insurance because men are trained by society to be dumbasses.

    Moreover, you can't make a generalization of half the population. It only matters what INDIVIDUALS do.

    Having a penis or a vagina does not automatically mean you will go to the doctor more or less.

    Incenjucar on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Comparing being a woman, something determined by genetics, to smoking, something that's a choice in life, is at levels of stupid where you shouldn't have to be told it's a bad comparison. I'm glad I'm not a part of Texas anymore.

    Edit - Hey, what happened to the net neutrality humbug?

    Henroid on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Also: Punishing women for reproducing is kind of a stupid move.

    Incenjucar on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Comparing being a woman, something determined by genetics, to smoking, something that's a choice in life, is at levels of stupid where you shouldn't have to be told it's a bad comparison. I'm glad I'm not a part of Texas anymore.
    Yeah, he was fucking retarded and worded it poorly but the underlying point- people (regardless of gender), if they can, should have to pay more if they utilise health care more- is one I agree with
    Edit - Hey, what happened to the net neutrality humbug?

    Death by irrelevance to the public most likely

    Rent on
  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Corbius wrote: »
    So, I made the mistake of reading some comments on that story, and was reminded that I have never understood the hate some people seem to have for Nancy Pelosi. Is it just "woman in position of power wwarrraagghable" or what?

    Quite a few Democrats hate her, but less for the 'woman' bit and more for the 'STOP BEING SO FUCKING SPINELESS' bit.

    Johnny Chopsocky on
    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Also: Punishing women for reproducing is kind of a stupid move.

    Before you know it, we'll be hearing from people who behead their wives for not bearing a son.

    Henroid on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Also: Punishing women for reproducing is kind of a stupid move.

    Why not? It's a choice the same as smoking that dramatically increases health care costs
    Unless you're saying if I get lung cancer I shouldn't have to pay more for coverage. Shoulder my economic burden wouldn't you Incenjucar?

    Also, before you ask I'm only talking about applying this to people who can afford it. If you're poor and pregnant, than everything I just said doesn't apply to you

    Rent on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Comparing being a woman, something determined by genetics, to smoking, something that's a choice in life, is at levels of stupid where you shouldn't have to be told it's a bad comparison. I'm glad I'm not a part of Texas anymore.
    Yeah, he was fucking retarded and worded it poorly but the underlying point- people (regardless of gender), if they can, should have to pay more if they utilise health care more- is one I agree with

    This is super fragile ground to tread on. Now, obviously women and men should pay the same rates. Here's the million dollar question: Do you treat health insurance like automobile insurance where the more someone has to rely upon it, the higher their premium goes?

    Or is that how it works now? The idea makes me irate to think about.

    Henroid on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Corbius wrote: »
    So, I made the mistake of reading some comments on that story, and was reminded that I have never understood the hate some people seem to have for Nancy Pelosi. Is it just "woman in position of power wwarrraagghable" or what?

    Quite a few Democrats hate her, but less for the 'woman' bit and more for the 'STOP BEING SO FUCKING SPINELESS' bit.

    that isn't really true of pelosi so much as it is of reid

    as the health care issue has demonstrated pelosi actually does manage to put the spurs to people occasionally

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    To weigh in on the Pelosi thing, I don't like her because she's been proven to be just as big a liar as a lot of other politicians. I mean, I don't HATE the lady, I'm just take whatever she says with a grain of salt. But she definitely busted ass for the healthcare thing. :^:

    Henroid on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    actually, the dems' whole trend of handing the senate leadership to feckless moderates from swing states is annoying. Should've just given it to kennedy or something

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Comparing being a woman, something determined by genetics, to smoking, something that's a choice in life, is at levels of stupid where you shouldn't have to be told it's a bad comparison. I'm glad I'm not a part of Texas anymore.
    Yeah, he was fucking retarded and worded it poorly but the underlying point- people (regardless of gender), if they can, should have to pay more if they utilise health care more- is one I agree with

    This is super fragile ground to tread on. Now, obviously women and men should pay the same rates. Here's the million dollar question: Do you treat health insurance like automobile insurance where the more someone has to rely upon it, the higher their premium goes?

    Or is that how it works now? The idea makes me irate to think about.

    It's...insurance, yes?

    If there's something about health insurance that's worth complaining about, it's the fact that while it's clearly insurance, it doesn't work anything like any other insurance. Instead of just covering unexpected spikes that would be too much to handle otherwise, it covers everything, including routine costs like checkups and medication that you know that you're going to need to buy once a month for the rest of your life.

    Imagine if automobile insurance covered your gasoline costs, or homeowners insurance covered your heating costs. That's what health insurance is doing now.

    If we honestly feel that basic health care should be accessable to everyone, we should just socialize it. Expecting health insurance to take on a role that no other form of insurance is expected to is silly.

    jothki on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Comparing being a woman, something determined by genetics, to smoking, something that's a choice in life, is at levels of stupid where you shouldn't have to be told it's a bad comparison. I'm glad I'm not a part of Texas anymore.
    Yeah, he was fucking retarded and worded it poorly but the underlying point- people (regardless of gender), if they can, should have to pay more if they utilise health care more- is one I agree with

    This is super fragile ground to tread on. Now, obviously women and men should pay the same rates. Here's the million dollar question: Do you treat health insurance like automobile insurance where the more someone has to rely upon it, the higher their premium goes?
    Yes. We should have levels of coverage just like automobile insurance- if you want full coverage, for any sort of (really unlikely) thing that happens to you, you can get that- or you can get "at fault" coverage, for instance, if you have to go to the ER (accident, for instance), and base insurance that guarantees regular health visits, etc etc
    Or is that how it works now? The idea makes me irate to think about.

    Sort of. Imagine my idea except demographics and potentiality are determinant of whether or not you'll be accepted for coverage.

    Basically, if health insurance companies had to pay out on every claim that was legitimate without question, they'd lose money. A shitload of money. So what they do is 1) overcharge healthy and low-risk people for coverage (to cover the remainder) 2) deny coverage to people who need it (so they don't have to pay out) 3) Term your contracts with byzantine wording and loopholes to deny a majority of legitimate remaining claims

    Oh also overcharge for medication. that's a biggie too

    Rent on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    We do have levels of coverage currently (at least, on paper we do.)

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I could jerk off to the idea of my gasoline being paid for. But I don't drive anymore so I still save money on that.

    I'm deathly ignorant of health insurance details - I haven't had health insurance since my dad dropped me from his plan many years ago. Like I knew that it'd cover the basics, and an operation if needed suddenly. But do rates actually go up like right on the first op need? Don't they analyze what the procedure it, what kind of followups it'll have, etc? Or analyze the user of the insurance and note them as being a chronic user?

    Edit - I know about levels of coverage, but all presentations of it to me have been "Are you single, married, or full-fledged family? And do you want eye / dental care with those too? Super size your fries and drink for 85 cents!"

    Henroid on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Also: Punishing women for reproducing is kind of a stupid move.

    Why not? It's a choice the same as smoking that dramatically increases health care costs
    Unless you're saying if I get lung cancer I shouldn't have to pay more for coverage. Shoulder my economic burden wouldn't you Incenjucar?

    Also, before you ask I'm only talking about applying this to people who can afford it. If you're poor and pregnant, than everything I just said doesn't apply to you

    Reproduction is something of a special issue due to the whole "adding another person" thing when it is successful, and the whole "people die eventually" thing.

    People with the lowest incomes will get subsidized automatically due to their economic status, but statistically are not going to be as effective at parenting as people higher on the ladder. In the long run, you want to encourage people with higher educations and incomes to reproduce, because their offspring will have a better chance of providing more benefit to the community. Moreover, ripping into someone's income when they have a child is going to worsen their overall quality of life, which is going to risk fucking things up for the family.

    It's a bad move.

    Incenjucar on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Also: Punishing women for reproducing is kind of a stupid move.

    Why not? It's a choice the same as smoking that dramatically increases health care costs
    Unless you're saying if I get lung cancer I shouldn't have to pay more for coverage. Shoulder my economic burden wouldn't you Incenjucar?

    Also, before you ask I'm only talking about applying this to people who can afford it. If you're poor and pregnant, than everything I just said doesn't apply to you

    Reproduction is something of a special issue due to the whole "adding another person" thing when it is successful, and the whole "people die eventually" thing.

    People with the lowest incomes will get subsidized automatically due to their economic status, but statistically are not going to be as effective at parenting as people higher on the ladder. In the long run, you want to encourage people with higher educations and incomes to reproduce, because their offspring will have a better chance of providing more benefit to the community. Moreover, ripping into someone's income when they have a child is going to worsen their overall quality of life, which is going to risk fucking things up for the family.

    It's a bad move.

    I still say we take a cue from Starcraft and launch the undesirables into space, and then try to claim their colonies later.

    Henroid on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    actually, the dems' whole trend of handing the senate leadership to feckless moderates from swing states is annoying. Should've just given it to kennedy or something

    LBJ wasn't the greatest President we ever had by any stretch, but he was a hell of a Speaker. Guy always knew exactly what pushed your buttons, exactly what you needed to hear, be treated to or threatened with in order to throw your vote his way, and once he latched onto you, he didn't let go. They called it "the treatment."

    If we do not have an LBJ in the Democratic caucus, we should find and elect one. Hell, elect two, one for each house.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I could jerk off to the idea of my gasoline being paid for. But I don't drive anymore so I still save money on that.

    I'm deathly ignorant of health insurance details - I haven't had health insurance since my dad dropped me from his plan many years ago. Like I knew that it'd cover the basics, and an operation if needed suddenly. But do rates actually go up like right on the first op need?
    They go up after, usually (they raise your premiums)
    Don't they analyze what the procedure it, what kind of followups it'll have, etc?
    Yes, and if you pass a certain threshold for how much money they can make off you by, again, raising the shit out of your premiums, they'll deny coverage...er...I mean "your plan does not currently cover that operation". Sorry, Henroid, but that brain tumor you have, you contract you signed specifically stated that we don't cover operations in the frontal lobe on the second Monday in November with guys with the frist name of H. DENIED

    Have fun living out your last six months in unconscionable pain ending in almost certain death
    Or analyze the user of the insurance and note them as being a chronic user?
    Chronic users of insurance don't have insurance
    Edit - I know about levels of coverage, but all presentations of it to me have been "Are you single, married, or full-fledged family? And do you want eye / dental care with those too? Super size your fries and drink for 85,000 dollars!"

    FTFY

    Rent on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    actually, the dems' whole trend of handing the senate leadership to feckless moderates from swing states is annoying. Should've just given it to kennedy or something

    LBJ wasn't the greatest President we ever had by any stretch, but he was a hell of a Speaker. Guy always knew exactly what pushed your buttons, exactly what you needed to hear, be treated to or threatened with in order to throw your vote his way, and once he latched onto you, he didn't let go. They called it "the treatment."

    If we do not have an LBJ in the Democratic caucus, we should find and elect one.

    LBJ was fifty years ago and was pretty unique in the leeway he was given to kick ass early in his career.

    I don't think they need the next LBJ, they just need a guy who will take somewhat-friendly policy positions and then actually act on them in the caucus.

    ed: also senate leader, not speaker /pedant

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Also: Punishing women for reproducing is kind of a stupid move.

    Why not? It's a choice the same as smoking that dramatically increases health care costs
    Unless you're saying if I get lung cancer I shouldn't have to pay more for coverage. Shoulder my economic burden wouldn't you Incenjucar?

    Also, before you ask I'm only talking about applying this to people who can afford it. If you're poor and pregnant, than everything I just said doesn't apply to you

    Reproduction is something of a special issue due to the whole "adding another person" thing when it is successful, and the whole "people die eventually" thing.

    People with the lowest incomes will get subsidized automatically due to their economic status, but statistically are not going to be as effective at parenting as people higher on the ladder. In the long run, you want to encourage people with higher educations and incomes to reproduce, because their offspring will have a better chance of providing more benefit to the community. Moreover, ripping into someone's income when they have a child is going to worsen their overall quality of life, which is going to risk fucking things up for the family.

    It's a bad move.
    That's reasonable, however I still disagree due to the fact that if we don't charge Pregnant Rich Lady for her pregnancy, Poor Healthy College Student(s) is gonna pick up the tab

    Rent on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    That's reasonable, however I still disagree due to the fact that if we don't charge Pregnant Rich Lady for her pregnancy, Poor Healthy College Student(s) is gonna pick up the tab

    If she's Rich she's already going to be paying a larger share.

    If the Poor College Student is paying -anything-.

    Incenjucar on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    I'm having problems understanding this current line of discussion about poor vs. rich pregnant women.

    Henroid on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm having problems understanding this current line of discussion about poor vs. rich pregnant women.

    Like I said before, health insurance companies overcharge costs to the healthy and young (because they won't typically cost the company much if at all) to make up for the old, sick, and otherwise infirm

    Thus, if we don't raise costs on pregnant women for greater health coverage, the young and healthy will be the bearers of the burden

    Rent on
  • theSquidtheSquid Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm having problems understanding this current line of discussion about poor vs. rich pregnant women.

    Like I said before, health insurance companies overcharge costs to the healthy and young (because they won't typically cost the company much if at all) to make up for the old, sick, and otherwise infirm

    Thus, if we don't raise costs on pregnant women for greater health coverage, the young and healthy will be the bearers of the burden

    What about the men that impregnate them? Are they off the hook?

    theSquid on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    If she's Rich she's already going to be paying a larger share.
    But she's paying more for more expansive, better quality coverage, not because she's pregnant and is therefore using health care more, which is the issue
    If the Poor College Student is paying -anything-.

    Admittedly the "poor" was a bad word to use. I meant relatively poor; poorer, rather.

    Anyways, it sounds to me like you agree that people who can afford it should be carrying the burden of health care coverage for people who can't. Extenuating circumstances should affect your coverage costs, as long as you're able to afford said extenuating circumstances.

    Rent on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »

    ed: also senate leader, not speaker /pedant

    Same basic concept.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm having problems understanding this current line of discussion about poor vs. rich pregnant women.

    Like I said before, health insurance companies overcharge costs to the healthy and young (because they won't typically cost the company much if at all) to make up for the old, sick, and otherwise infirm

    Thus, if we don't raise costs on pregnant women for greater health coverage, the young and healthy will be the bearers of the burden

    o_O

    Why don't we work out how much money is actually needed for 1) insurance and 2) actual medical procedures.

    Henroid on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    theSquid wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm having problems understanding this current line of discussion about poor vs. rich pregnant women.

    Like I said before, health insurance companies overcharge costs to the healthy and young (because they won't typically cost the company much if at all) to make up for the old, sick, and otherwise infirm

    Thus, if we don't raise costs on pregnant women for greater health coverage, the young and healthy will be the bearers of the burden

    What about the men that impregnate them? Are they off the hook?

    Nope, the assumption is the father would have to pay half of all health care costs. (Isn't that how it currently is anyways? So the point is like completely moot)

    This isn't a sexist thing, this is a usage of health care thing. If you're using health care more due to your decisions, you should pay more, if you are able to afford it.

    I said women would be charged more, not have to pay more. It's an important distinction to make

    Rent on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    This isn't a sexist thing, this is a usage of health care thing. If you're using health care more due to your decisions, you should pay more, if you are able to afford it.

    I do not agree on this as a default in regards to reproduction due to its unique properties. You do not want to make it easier for the poor to breed than the middle class.
    I said women would be charged more, not have to pay more. It's an important distinction to make

    This wording makes no sense.

    --

    It's kind of a hundred years too late to assume that all pregnant women have husbands.

    --

    That said this is a healthcare thing and should probably be moved into the healthcare thread.

    The thing is that the guy we're talking about is basically wanting to charge women more because they're more likely to use preventative care than men are. Gynecologists, etc.

    Incenjucar on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Although I disagree with you Incenjucar, I appreciate the time you took to debate me whilst keeping it civil and on-topic. Well-played sir

    (Even though you're a poopie head :P )

    Anyways, I agree, Sessions is a toolbox, and is probably sexist

    Rent on
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited November 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    The thing is that the guy we're talking about is basically wanting to charge women more because they're more likely to use preventative care than men are. Gynecologists, etc.

    Charging someone more for making use of facilities more? That's unpossible!

    Next thing you know, you'll tell me it costs more to get 5 gallons of gas than 4 gallons. Or that it costs more to go to the movies three times than go to the movies two times.

    zerg rush on
This discussion has been closed.