Quantcast

ACA haters don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ no babies

By TBogg
Thursday, October 31, 2013 14:02 EDT
google plus icon
backinsthestirrupsagain
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

It was probably inevitable that, in an effort to sink the Good Ship Affordable Health Care, the wonderful folks who brought you the Let The Free Market & Jesus Take Care of Your Butt Cancer health care system that we labored under until recently would start to break feet-stamping down into easy-to-swallow fun-sized chunklets of victimology. First they told us that  Affordable Care Act was the equivalent of pooping all over the graves of The Founding Fathers [takes out pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and waves it in the air like he don't know what's in there] so they tried to burn the country down in order to save it. Then OMG! the website didn’t work cool beans right out of the chute so they wanted to treat it like the printer in Office Space.  Jumping on board, teevee “news” people wheeled out a herd of cow-eyed common-sense Velcro-Shoe Americans to explain that ignorance is bliss and trying is hard, so why bother because we’re all gonna die anyway. Then came: The Experts and that should have been the Death Knell for Death Panels but, “no” it’s not because no assault on our freedoms can be complete without attributing it to the dark and sinister desires of some ‘special interest group’. Who can it be this time? The Gheys? The Blahs?  People who don’t want their kids shot?

Nope … cherchez la femme.

It seems that women, or if you’re part of the Men’s Rights Movement you may know them as “kitchen-dwelling sex-holes“,  totally want to suck up all that sweet medical moolah for their mysterious lady-plumbing needs. I know, right?  Bitches! And we know this is true because Congresslady Renee Elmers (R- Has Vagina For Extra Credibility) says so by explaining that ladies are the only  baby-having gender and why do the ladies want to take all of the men’s hard-earned cash when men have already bestowed upon women several minutes of almost-pleasure, to say nothing of sharing their manly seed:

Ellmers is correct to observe that human males don’t gestate human children. Likewise, no human female, to the best of my knowledge, has ever developed testicular or prostate cancer. A big part of what the Affordable Care Act does is recognize that treating cancer and bearing children are costly but common things our society places a great deal of value on, and defrays the costs of doing them broadly, even if they’re sex-specific. That women shouldn’t be financially penalized, by accident of birth, for having wombs. Perhaps if human fetuses were incubated in nests like birds Ellmers would see the value in socializing the costs of advancing the species.

But let’s examine the demographic politics of Ellmers’ snide inquisition. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurers cover maternity care is a major manifestation of its broader prohibition against gender rating. Before Obamacare, it made sense actuarially to charge women more than men for equivalent insurance coverage on the individual market. The fact that women, rather than men, incur maternity costs was a big part of this. By prohibiting the practice, Obamacare doesn’t just strike a blow for moral reasoning. It effectuates a billion dollar transfer of wealth from men to women.

Pish-posh. Women are takers, not makers. Except for that baby-making part.

And besides, the ladies are  already crazy with their hormones and their going to the doctor for their health concerns like when they discover a mysterious lump and why can’t they just suck it up and rub  some dirt on it like a guy would.

“Women go to the doctor much more often than men! Maybe they’re smarter or maybe they’re hypochondriacs,” Stossel continued. “They live longer. Who knows? But if it’s insurance, you ought to be able to charge people who use the services more, more.”

“But, John, you’re not paying attention,” Doocy said sarcastically. “This administration, this president wants to make everything fair. It’s not fair if you pay less than she does… And as a number of Republicans have made the argument, why should I pay for — I’m in my 60s, why should I pay for your maternity coverage?”

“Or why should women pay for men’s Viagra?” Stossel asked. “This mandating all this stuff it has to cover just takes away consumer choice.”

Because I can’t imagine why any woman (outside of Mrs Doocy or Mrs Stossel) might derive any benefit from a man taking Viagra. Unless, of course she was a slut and then we would just have to pay for her slut pills.

So, you see,  it’s a slippery slope folks, and lube costs extra…

 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
Google+