Archive for Sunday, April 9, 2017

Letter to the editor: Fair is fair

April 9, 2017

Advertisement

To the editor:

Mr. Krauthammer, I read with interest your syndicated column that appeared in the April 1 edition of the Lawrence Journal-World. You stated that Obamacare — which is the Affordable Care Act, if you don’t know — is heavy-handed in mandating specific medical benefits in every insurance policy and ask why should everyone be forced to pay for it, because you don’t need lactation services.

For decades I have had to pay for insurance policies that cover prostate care, erectile dysfunction and, until a few years ago, hair implants. I don’t need any of those services either.

Shame on you for being of the same ilk as Sen. Pat Roberts. You all have mothers. You may have sisters. I know Roberts has a female wife, and you may have daughters. Since men bear so little responsibility in our society for procreation, the very least they can do is pay their share of health care costs.

Why don’t you write a column about all the limitations placed on a man’s right to procreate? Oh wait, there are none.

Over half the people in the United States are women, and shouldn’t the majority have the better benefits?

Comments

Bob Smith 8 months, 1 week ago

"...Since men bear so little responsibility in our society for procreation..." You're unfamiliar with the concept of court-ordered child support?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months ago

Great letter. So men don't want to pay for birth control pills, but want their viagra covered. Men don't want to pay for abortions or births or to prevent pregnancy. But men want their fun. They get upset if women don't say yes. They buy sex. Some force sex on women. Many men still believe there is no such thing as marital rape, that it's the wife's "duty".

On this forum men have claimed that viagra has health benefits other than sex. Guess what? So does prenatal care, birth control pills, even lactation services. Of course, all these things have something to do with babies and women, so it doesn't count, right.

One man even told me that he didn't need insurance, because he hadn't been to a doctor in years, unlike women who go in for check ups every year. Really macho, right? Yep, you got it. He died of cancer which was curable if detected in time. His kids collected his Social Security and grew up without a dad. I guess we pay one way or another, don't we. Step up to the plate wimpy men. (Only wimpy men. I'm know plenty of real men out there who care about others)

Richard Aronoff 8 months ago

I think Dr. K's point was people should be able to tailor their insurance coverage to their specific needs. But that would require applying some common sense to the question of coverage. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Cille King 8 months ago

"...tailor their insurance coverage to their specific needs." ? Who can predict if they will be in an accident and need hospital care and rehabilitation, or get cancer, or diabetics? And even women who don't plan on getting pregnant so don't buy prenatal and maternity care, then end up pregnant?

The US pays nearly twice what all other developed countries pay for health care, yet had lower life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rate. Only in the last few years has the US health care spending leveled off. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

Bob Smith 8 months ago

Other developed countries do not have the gigantic unhealthy underclass that has been nurtured by the Democrats for the past half century.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months ago

And why isn't the care of children a "specific need" to men? I am too old to have children, but I'm willing to pay for that kind of care, just so younger women won't be without it. And how else are you going to make insurance companies happy? They want to make money, not provide health care. If we all had single payer, and a non profit situation, it would be different. But no, it's not about health care, it's about the profit.

Andrew Applegarth 8 months ago

"Why don’t you write a column about all the limitations placed on a man’s right to procreate? Oh wait, there are none."

Sure. That's why rape is legal and birth control isn't...

Seriously, there are no legal limitations on anybody's right to consensually procreate, although both sexes experience restrictions on their ability to do so. Interestingly enough, the biggest restriction on procreation is women saying "No" to sex. The second biggest is the use of birth control products. The truth is that a woman who just wants to procreate can find a donor fairly easily while a man who just wants to procreate has a much harder time finding a willing partner. Oh wait, you didn't really mean procreate, did you?

Now don't get me wrong, I am more than okay with women saying no and the use of birth control. I'm just pointing out a stupid statement that is factually inaccurate and that doesn't even support her alleged point.

Cille King 8 months ago

"Why don’t you write a column about all the limitations placed on a man’s right to procreate? Oh wait, there are none."

Reading the whole letter, which is about health insurance and who should pay for procreation in our society, I believe that we are talking about just that - who pays. Before the ACA, women's health insurance costs were higher than men's - because they were the ones who became pregnant and gave birth, and suffered all the possible complications. Is it really fair to charge women more, when all of us are a part of the process, and perhaps benefit from maintaining our society? Unless you think we should all stop having children and let humanity die out.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months ago

There are plenty of men out there who back out of their responsibilities to the children that they help create. And, yes, there is court ordered child support, but many don't pay, or they don't pay nearly enough to raise the child. And then there are those who just don't think they have to be responsible to any child in our country. They don't want women getting abortions and some don't even want birth control, but then they kick them to the curb. They love having poor people who they make fun of. I guess it makes them feel all macho. I think any man who isn't willing to pay extra insurance for pregnancy or birth control, should be banned from having sex at all. If they have sex, then they should go to prison. Keep your pants zipped, boys. And I do mean boys, not men. They are NOT men.

Richard Heckler 8 months ago

Without sperm there are no pregnancies .....

Bob Smith 8 months ago

You've never heard of parthenogenesis?

Andrew Applegarth 8 months ago

Insurance is designed as a safety net for directly incurred medical expenses, not a weapon of social justice. If statistics show that women of child-bearing age are going to cost the insurance company more in covered expenses than other groups, yes, it's fair to charge them more for that more risky coverage. That's how mutually shared risk works. What you're pushing for is not about sharing mutual risks. It's about punishing people with lower risk to subsidize those with higher risk.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months ago

But you are saying that it's all on the woman, and that the man had nothing to do with that pregnancy. Sorry, chick, it's all on you. See ya around.

Andrew Applegarth 8 months ago

No, I didn't. You're just apparently too stupid to understand what I did say.

Richard Aronoff 8 months ago

You really have to love Dorothy. Like Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton, she has such a marvelous jenasaisanything quality.

Tailoring your coverage means a 56 year old unmarried woman shouldn't have to pay for pregnancy related coverage. A single man without children doesn't need coverage for pediatric services.

A restaurant run by Dorothy would require you to order everything on the menu whether or not you wanted or needed anything,

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months ago

I'm 64 years old, Richard. And as I stated above, I don't mind paying a little extra if it makes insurance more affordable for those who need pregnancy care. I don't have cancer, but my insurance covers that. I don't have MS, but I'm covered there too. I probably will never get acne now, but if I did, I'm covered. I will never ever have erectile dysfunction, but I'm "forced" to pay for that too, and have been for longer than you poor, put upon boys have had to be covered for pregnancy. Boo hoo, Richard.

Richard Heckler 8 months ago

Over rated and expensive medical insurance giants OVER CHARGE their customers over and above their greedy size premiums THEN do not provide any medical care whatsoever :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Beware this privilege likely never died.......

8 lobbyists per elected official = good golly miss molly there is no management just reckless use of heath care dollars.

Richard Heckler 8 months ago

Provide Consumers with 3 choices: Let the consumer decide

=== ObamaCare which retains the health insurance industry

=== Single Payer Medicare for ALL = excellent coverage for all who wish to subscribe.

Single-Payer (HR 676 and S 703) Expanded Medicare for All Vs. Proposed Healthcare “Private insurance with Public Option” http://www.healthcare-now.org/docs/spreport.pdf ( very interesting findings)

=== Self financed health care for the financially fiscally fit if one wants to opt out.

Can conservatives get on with this without screwing up healthcare, without a bunch of BS and stop throwing fiscal conservatives, republicans,green party thinkers and democrats under the bus?

Improved Medicare for All would substantially reduce health care costs (especially for low- and middle-income families), expand coverage, and improve access to care. But it ain't free .... it is however more effective and efficient use of our tax dollars.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...