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?
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
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
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.
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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.
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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?
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
0
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
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.
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
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
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
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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. :^:
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
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
We do have levels of coverage currently (at least, on paper we do.)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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!"
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
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
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.
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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!"
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
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
I'm having problems understanding this current line of discussion about poor vs. rich pregnant women.
Henroid on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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.
Posts
that's pretty much it
also that she isn't attractive enough for them
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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.
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.
So he's both Stephen Colbert and a liberal plant?
Noice
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.
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
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.
Edit - Hey, what happened to the net neutrality humbug?
Death by irrelevance to the public most likely
Quite a few Democrats hate her, but less for the 'woman' bit and more for the 'STOP BEING SO FUCKING SPINELESS' bit.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Before you know it, we'll be hearing from people who behead their wives for not bearing a son.
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
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.
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
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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.
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
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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!"
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.
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.
Have fun living out your last six months in unconscionable pain ending in almost certain death Chronic users of insurance don't have insurance
FTFY
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
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If she's Rich she's already going to be paying a larger share.
If the Poor College Student is paying -anything-.
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?
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.
Same basic concept.
o_O
Why don't we work out how much money is actually needed for 1) insurance and 2) actual medical procedures.
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
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.
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.
(Even though you're a poopie head :P )
Anyways, I agree, Sessions is a toolbox, and is probably sexist
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.