Pete Sessions compares being female to being a smoker

Why does Pete Session disrespect women? (5.00 / 1)

Does he only like the kind of women he hangs out with in Vegas.
Let's show him that we are not going to put up with him and his misogynist Republican colleagues any more.  
Donate to Grier Raggio's Act Blue Page - he's trying to raise $11,000 before Tuesday so he can show the Democrats in Washington that he has real grassroots support in TX32 and throughout the country.

http://www.actblue.com/entity/...
Women, rise up and contribute - as little or as much as you can manage.
 

---

by: youcantgetfooledagain @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:20:48 PM UTC

I think the point is... (1.67 / 3)

...that it costs more to insure women because they are a bigger health risk.  Sort of like the reverse with young men and car insurance.  I don't know much about Sessions but I think the headline here is a little hysterical.

---

by: Holdek @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:25:51 PM UTC

Hysterical? Really? (4.00 / 2)

Good ol' boy Taliban loving Pete Sessions receives a cool $1,424,900 from the health industry.  Tell me he is not a shill for his cash cow sugar daddy donors.

That said, how precisely are women a bigger health risk?  Stats show that men are more likely to die sooner than their wives, i.e. women.

Please do explain why women are bigger health risks.

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:17:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't know... (0.00 / 0)

... but you could probably look that info up yourself.  Alls I'm saying is that the industry views them as a higher risk, so they charge them more.  It's just economics.    

---

by: Holdek @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:59:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just Economics (4.00 / 2)

You're absolutely right. And that's absolutely wrong. The insurance "industry" shouldn't have this kind of control over our health care and life and death decisions. It's amazing how many people accept the insurance industry's role in our lives without question.

American health care reform doesn't need Pete Sessions or any of the rest of 'em. They really do hate America and apparently women, too.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:20:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just economics (0.00 / 0)

In the above replace "insurance industry" with "government" and you will find why most in the US are against this bill.

---

by: sdhook @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 13:30:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong (5.00 / 2)

government is not going to replace insurance.  It is going to make insurance more competitive by giving folks choices, i.e. a public option.  Competition will make insurance more affordable. But it seems that Republicans now hate competition and support monopolies.  Go figure.  

I guess that the affordability factor is why Republicans hate health care reform so much.  They won't be able to get as many contributions from their cash cows in big insurance.

And most Americans, by the way, support health care reform that includes a public option.

You government hating folks ought to wake up and smell the coffee.  The role of the government is to protect the nation's financial well-being, our national security and citizens from corporate sharks and charlatans. We would not be in the horrible mess we are in if our government had been at work for the people during the W. years.

Because the government was asleep for the last eight years, except to wage two wars (1 completely unnecessary) while giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, thereby sticking the middle class with an enormous tax burden, and deregulating the banks and Wall St. we now find ourselves in the worst economy since the Depression.  The only entities that made out like bandits are Wall St., Halliburton and the military/industrial complex.  Oh, and so much for trickle down economics BS.  The only places profits trickled was upward and into the pockets of Wall St.'s fat cats and Halliburton's CEO. Where are all of those new jobs trickle down was supposed to create?

Speaking of Wall St., when the idiots in Congress lifted restrictions they allowed Wall St. to turn into giant gambling casinos.  The players stuffed their big wins in their pockets but had to come running to big daddy government to cover their losses.  The addicted gamblers can now play at the $100. tables instead of at the $5.00 tables b/c they have taxpayer money now.  The reckless gamblers have to be stopped b/f they lose our money again, because rest assured they will.

But when Barney Frank and other Democrats attempt to introduce bills to regulate Wall St. and the banks, I imagine the Republicans will throw the same kinds of hissy fits that they are throwing over health care reform.

You folks must be drinking a lot of tea that is laced with LSD.

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 22:01:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who are these "most" in the US? (5.00 / 1)

I look forward to some kind of evidence that your statement is more than just a right-wing, inaccurate talking point. Is it from the Fox News research department? They're always so good with exploring fantasy while calling it "fact."

I have this to share just in case you would like to read some facts:

Americans divide about evenly on the reform plan and Obama's handling of health care alike - neither better nor worse for him since summer. But 57 percent support one of the plan's most contentious elements, a government-sponsored insurance option, and that soars to 76 percent if it's limited to those who can't get affordable private insurance.

Indeed Americans by 51-37 percent in this latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they'd rather see a plan pass Congress without Republican support, if it includes a public option based on affordability, than with Republican backing but no such element. [emphasis added for sdhook.]

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 05:54:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would rather see it pass without R support (0.00 / 0)

and so far it has.  OK one R in a major D district. Can't blame him as his constituents are probably for the bill.  (Now if he can just keep from taking bribes and freezing the money.)  Passing without R support means more R's in congress in 2010.

As far as choice goes here is the basic choice.  As an American you will have the right to purchase a government approved health care plan.  If you choose not to purchase a government approved plan you have the right to choose to pay 2.5% of your income to the government or go to jail.

i.e. If you are an American that wants to save on premiums by purchasing only a catastrophic plan and keep, say $15-20K of your money in the bank (earning interest) to pay deductibles and doctor visits you can but you will still have to pay 2.5% of your income or go to jail.  You are correct they are offering us choices.  That's why I'd like to keep government out of my business.  

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

poll showing 42% favoring plan

By the way the public option support question is generally a follow up question on these polls.  i.e. assuming a plan is is place should it have a public option.  

---

by: sdhook @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 13:21:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jail? (5.00 / 1)

If you choose not to purchase a government approved plan you have the right to choose to pay 2.5% of your income to the government or go to jail.

Sadly and ironically, it's a better place if you would like to get medical care and don't have insurance.  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:29:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is what we're headed for (1.00 / 2)

do what the gov't says or pay a big fine and/or go to jail. What's next?  Drive a Prius or go to jail?  Put solar panels on your house or go to jail?

Of course don't pay tour taxes and you can be appointed to the O administration. Can we talk hypocrisy?

---

by: sdhook @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:01:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, we do what the guvmint says (5.00 / 2)

when it tells us to go to war for no good reason. Where was all the screeching and bellyaching when W. lied us into Iraq? You folks scream and rant about government and yet you rightie rights sat back and blindly bought into W.'s lies. And when some of us on the left smelled a rat, we were demonized and told we were unpatriotic.  Unpatriotic my butt.  We were the real patriots at the time. The rightie rights have been taken over by a bunch of self-serving charlatans who play you folks like fools.

And the right had no problem with massive tax cuts while we wage war on two fronts.  Fiscal conservatives who are also now against competition and for monopolies had no problem whatsoever when W. stuck Iraq, Afghanistan and his irresponsible tax cuts on the nation's credit card.

The hypocrisy and appalling ignorance that pervades the Republican Party is simply breath taking.

 

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 16:09:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't like war, and my taxes pay for that (3.00 / 1)

So people like sdhook can just suck it up and pay for my health care!

---

by: CoolOnion @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 21:45:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

P.S. (0.00 / 0)

A better analogy would be, "if you don't buy war bonds we'll penalize you 2.5% or go to jail"

---

by: sdhook @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 01:22:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seriously (5.00 / 1)

Do you have health insurance? It's clear you don't understand the complexity of this issue and how the lack of reform will continue to suck the life out of the country. Jail will be a vacation.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 05:01:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree on Iraq (0.00 / 0)

They've fought there for centuries with no winner.  Unless you are prepared to wipe out and defeat an enemy no reason to go to war.  But its also no reason to take freedom from me by FORCING ME to purchase the kind of health care the gov't wants me to purchase.  Totally over stepping.

---

by: sdhook @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 01:14:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's lumped in with "tax evasion" (3.00 / 1)

If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail, just as it's always been.  Leave it to "hysterical" people like Pete Sessions to highlight that part and make it seem that if you anti-health care reform you're going to jail.

---

by: CoolOnion @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 21:44:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Easy answer to an easy question (2.00 / 1)

You are correct, men are more likely to die sooner than women. Last time I checked insurance companies don't pay for services for dead people. The longer you live the more they have to cover because you'll be requiring more services over more time, especially in your older years, which women statistically see more of. Hence, you get higher insurance rates for those who will potentially/statistically demand more services.

Also, there's a little expensive thing called pregnancy.

---

by: nowayjose @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 04:30:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Before or after Medicare? (0.00 / 0)

Those who live longer also pay premiums longer -- though once a policyholder survives long enough to get Medicare without getting too sick or injured along the way, the insurance company wins.  Men are probably more likely to have accidents before that age, due to riskier behavior.  Health insurance companies win again on the morgue-bound accidents, but not on the hospital-bound ones.

But yes, having to deal with pregnancy is an extra cost for women's health compared to men's, if you're looking at it from a strict "how much should I charge to take on this person's health issues?" perspective -- which is what an unregulated profit-seeking business tends to do, which is why we need to limit discrimination against certain classes of policyholders in recognition that health care for everyone benefits everyone.  In particular, every baby has a father too, who also likely pays (or has paid on his behalf) into the health insurance system.  On the other hand, not every woman gets pregnant.

As for the smoking comparison, will insurance companies cover "female cessation treatment", a.k.a. a "sex change operation"? :-)

---

by: Scott Wood @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 15:26:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's the old "right vs. privilege" argument (5.00 / 1)

Most readers of BOR (including me) think that access to health care is a right, and that it's wrong to deny care, or make it unaffordable, to people with higher risks beyond their control (e.g., pre-existing conditions). Everybody should be in the pool. Sharing risks across gender lines works the same way.

But insurance is often pitched as averaging your risks over time and chance, rather than averaging your risks against somebody else's risks. You have a car accident this year and the insurance company pays, you don't have another accident for the next ten years and you pay the insurance premiums anyway, and it more-or-less balances. You pay less if you have a good driving record (low risk) and a lot more if you're a teenage male. Your insurance cost for the privilege of driving is supposed to be the average cost of the damage you're likely to do out there. It's not based on the societal cost of keeping everybody driving.

If health care were only a privilege, then Session's comments would make perfect sense. It isn't, and they don't.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 18:05:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To Scott's excellent points, (0.00 / 0)

I'd also add there's a chicken-egg problem here.  It's well-established that the cost of treatment for medical issues more often faced by women is strongly influenced by significant historical differences in the level of investment, care, and attention devoted to men's versus women's health.  Reasons range from lack of female perspective, input, and control in the historical development of medicine and the medical industry to historical disparities in income/earning power/resources between men and women.  Entrenching these disparities through the health insurance regime then serves to perpetuate continuing economic differences.

All this is in addition to the foundational question of whether it's appropriate to discriminate in health care regardless of profit.  Race certainly correlates to medical risks, even controlling for socioeconomic differences (genetic predispositions to sickle cell anemia, osteo perosis, etc.), but as a society, we've rejected the idea that racial discrimination is okay even in such cases.  Another powerful reason why health care as a pure for-profit industry doesn't make sense in a society with our democratic values.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 18:07:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pregnancy, the argument I laugh at the most (3.00 / 1)

It takes two to tango, nowayjose, and as long as women aren't "getting themselves pregnant," it's right for men to share the financial responsibility, including insurance rates that don't discriminate by gender.

Being male or female is not something one chooses, like being a smoker or choosing to drive in a reckless manner.

What's next, not covering sickle cell anemia because it only affects those of African-American descent?  Not covering prostate cancer because it only affects men?

If we think of ourselves as a "we" society instead of a "me first" nation, we'll be able to cover everybody at equitable rates by expanding the risk pool to include everybody.  It'll be cheaper and cover wellness care for everybody, nobody left out.

---

by: CoolOnion @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:03:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What does Jack McDonald think? (0.00 / 0)

I know we are bashing ALL Texas Reps for being against the recent health care bill passed by the house.  Has anyone heard what Jack McDonald (potential candidate House District 10), thinks about the bill?  I haven't been able to find anything.

---

by: sdhook @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 13:19:32 PM UTC