GOP Congressman compares women to smokers

[nodoginnafight]

ahh yes....voted against barring rape ...now this.....the party of family values is scarey

You don't think women's health care is more expensive?

no, i don't..., men are in general, UNHEALTHIER than women and this is why women live longer than men.

If they live LONGER wouldn't that mean that they wind up spending MORE on healthcare?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yet one more example of seeing only what you want to see. Context, people, context! Was he saying women should pay more - actually, no. He was saying that we are all individuals and there can be no 'one size fits all' solution.

Jeeeeez, it's really pathetic how we twist the words of others in order to score partisan points.

No, there is no explaining this in a way that will make a liberal say "yeah, you're right. That is what he meant and it was a good point. Sorry."
They wont say that because they aren't interested in the truth. They are interested in spinning everything and anything they can for political gain.
Thus arguing like this or trying to explain is a waste of time.
The only proper response is to mock and ridicule.

I guess the party of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy is more interested in women than the GOP. Except of course for Barney Frank.

There IS no way of explaining this away... the Congressman compared being a woman to being a smoker...HIS words not mine... but of course the "personal responsibility" party doesn't TAKE responsibility for their words or actions...LIKE:
...in 2006, nine Senate Republicans voted to explicitly kill a proposal that would have ensured that insurance companies cannot use domestic violence as a pretext for denying coverage to women.

 

[Care4all]

the whole idea of how insurance is suppose to work, is spreading your risks....not eliminating one risk after another, then spreading your risk....?

Matthew and i were never able to have children, why should i be charged more?

i know plenty of smokers that don't drink and are trim and fit....i know plenty of people where diabetes runs in their family...

or heart disease runs in their family...

or prostate cancer runs in their family....

shouldn't they be paying more because they will more than likely use much more health care than the rest of us?

IT DOES NOT work that way, NOR SHOULD IT....not with health care.... in this case, the risk needs to be spread out among all.... yes, you are your brother's keeper, when it comes to the health care business model....

the insurance industry ALREADY played this shit ass game on us once previously....they refused to cover SENIORS with private health insurance unless they got huge premiums.... seniors could not get health care coverage from them affordably, so our government HAD TO CREATE MEDICARE for them....putting the bill for their health care on to taxes....and this is after the seniors PAID for health insurance year after year, when they were young and healthy.... and some of you all give reverence to the insurance companies??? sheesh...

Now they charge smokers more, to where they can not afford the extra premium...this cuts smokers out of their pool of spreading risk....they cut their risks, AGAIN, just like with dropping seniors....due to their hikes.

Guess who will foot the bill for these smokers when they become sick without insurance?

THIS IS BULL CRAP....everyone should be covered at the same price and in the price, all risk should be prorated among everyone....this picking and choosing that they are doing hurts all of us....and puts more and more burden on to our taxes, by having to cover who they eliminated...the disabled, we cover them with disability/medicaid....the elderly, we cover with MEDICARE now....the smokers without insurance becqause it is now too costly for them, we will be hit with the bill somehow...guaranteed.

 

[Care4all]

You don't think women's health care is more expensive?

no, i don't..., men are in general, UNHEALTHIER than women and this is why women live longer than men.

If they live LONGER wouldn't that mean that they wind up spending MORE on healthcare?

NO, not necessarily.... it means they just do not get as sick as men do, in general...thus less health care expense.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yet one more example of seeing only what you want to see. Context, people, context! Was he saying women should pay more - actually, no. He was saying that we are all individuals and there can be no 'one size fits all' solution.

Jeeeeez, it's really pathetic how we twist the words of others in order to score partisan points.

Thank you for telling us what Sessions REALLY meant...

Now, you can tell what Sessions meant here:

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

 

[California Girl]

Yet one more example of seeing only what you want to see. Context, people, context! Was he saying women should pay more - actually, no. He was saying that we are all individuals and there can be no 'one size fits all' solution.

Jeeeeez, it's really pathetic how we twist the words of others in order to score partisan points.

Thank you for telling us what Sessions REALLY meant...

Now, you can tell what Sessions meant here:

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

That you are too stupid to grasp the meaning of peoples words, that is your problem, Bf, I am not gonna spend time teaching you the meaning of the word 'context'. And try not to wander off topic in a silly attempt to justify your stupidity.

 

[caela]

You don't think women's health care is more expensive?

no, i don't..., men are in general, UNHEALTHIER than women and this is why women live longer than men.

If they live LONGER wouldn't that mean that they wind up spending MORE on healthcare?

Actually no. Women's most expensive years (typically) are those when she is in her childbearing prime. We make yearly visits to the doctor for things like Pap Smears and, if we get pregnant those can become monthly visits to check on the health of mom and the baby and those tests can be rather pricey. As we get older we actually end up going to the doctor less. Men on the other hand are the opposite. They go less when they are younger and just as women are winding down they are gearing up. Most health related issues for men don't really hit them until they're 40+ and, at that point, tend to be more expensive than women's health issues to fix so in the long run men end up paying more than women even though we live longer.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yet one more example of seeing only what you want to see. Context, people, context! Was he saying women should pay more - actually, no. He was saying that we are all individuals and there can be no 'one size fits all' solution.

Jeeeeez, it's really pathetic how we twist the words of others in order to score partisan points.

Thank you for telling us what Sessions REALLY meant...

Now, you can tell what Sessions meant here:

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

That you are too stupid to grasp the meaning of peoples words, that is your problem, Bf, I am not gonna spend time teaching you the meaning of the word 'context'. And try not to wander off topic in a silly attempt to justify your stupidity.

YOU are going to teach the meaning of 'context'...WOW!!!

do not understand what end of life counceling is?

Actually, yes, I do. And I have no objection to it. And it's an excellent 'strawman' for 'death panels'.... but the death panels are not just about end of life counceling. They are about the kinds of things that Dr Emanuel talked about in the conclusions of one of the research documents used to 'inform' the health care bill. Ya know, the stuff about 'children under the age of two being not fully functioning human beings' and therefore 'less important' for treatment, along with the elderly, disabled people, etc. That's the death panel. What if it's your 2 yr old? Or your disabled relative who the government decide is 'not an appropriate use of resources'?

Cali girl, you are either really stupid or a disingenuous morally bankrupt partisan hack...

You applied Dr. Emanuel's research document Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions which is a study about allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines, a no win situation in which rationing is already happening solely because supply simply can't keep up with demand OUT OF CONTEXT that it would be "used to 'inform' the health care bill"

You really are as scummy as it gets...are you Political Chic in incognito?

 

[johnrocks]

Discrimination is a good thing, actuary science has these things down to ;well; a science. I mean should a person;man or woman; who doesn't smoke,doesn't drink,do drugs, exercises regularly and eats only healthy foods pay the same as the fat sonofabitch who smokes three packs of Marlboro Reds a day, goes home and knocks down a 12 pack of Budweiser before he has his 14 hour snoozefest? If you say yes, not only are you a dumbfuck but the rates will go UP to the fat fuck not DOWN to the healthy person or even somewhere in the middle. Same with a young woman who goes to the Doctor every 3 months for PAP Smears, breast exams and what have you while us men keep on not going, it eventually catches up to our dumbasses and we start paying the price in our mid years on as well as not living as long, women do get the last laugh.

Unfortunately this is way to stereotypical and not especially true.
To many examples of "healthy" people having heart attacks, strokes, etc and "unhealthy" people living to ripe old ages with few medical problems. This is why I believe it's more DNA related than lifestyle related.

I guess it's both, I knew people who have died of heart attacks in their teen years and I've known 90 year old smokers but by and large, you don't see too many fat,80 year old smokers who drink and eat without a worry in the world and there aren't that many teens dying from cardiovascular problems.

 

[California Girl]

Thank you for telling us what Sessions REALLY meant...

Now, you can tell what Sessions meant here:

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

That you are too stupid to grasp the meaning of peoples words, that is your problem, Bf, I am not gonna spend time teaching you the meaning of the word 'context'. And try not to wander off topic in a silly attempt to justify your stupidity.

YOU are going to teach the meaning of 'context'...WOW!!!

do not understand what end of life counceling is?

Actually, yes, I do. And I have no objection to it. And it's an excellent 'strawman' for 'death panels'.... but the death panels are not just about end of life counceling. They are about the kinds of things that Dr Emanuel talked about in the conclusions of one of the research documents used to 'inform' the health care bill. Ya know, the stuff about 'children under the age of two being not fully functioning human beings' and therefore 'less important' for treatment, along with the elderly, disabled people, etc. That's the death panel. What if it's your 2 yr old? Or your disabled relative who the government decide is 'not an appropriate use of resources'?

Cali girl, you are either really stupid or a disingenuous morally bankrupt partisan hack...

You applied Dr. Emanuel's research document Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions which is a study about allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines, a no win situation in which rationing is already happening solely because supply simply can't keep up with demand OUT OF CONTEXT that it would be "used to 'inform' the health care bill"

You really are as scummy as it gets...are you Political Chic in incognito?

Did Emanuel only write one research paper now? That's odd, because I have several. But I think the appropriate response to you is "Whatever".

I just don't like twisting facts to score political points. It's kinda dumb, in my opinion. But you carry one twisting. You're opinions are of no value to anyone with even an average intellect.

If you think I'm as scummy as it gets, you should look in a mirror, kid.

 

[Care4all]

no, i don't..., men are in general, UNHEALTHIER than women and this is why women live longer than men.

If they live LONGER wouldn't that mean that they wind up spending MORE on healthcare?

Actually no. Women's most expensive years (typically) are those when she is in her childbearing prime. We make yearly visits to the doctor for things like Pap Smears and, if we get pregnant those can become monthly visits to check on the health of mom and the baby and those tests can be rather pricey. As we get older we actually end up going to the doctor less. Men on the other hand are the opposite. They go less when they are younger and just as women are winding down they are gearing up. Most health related issues for men don't really hit them until they're 40+ and, at that point, tend to be more expensive than women's health issues to fix so in the long run men end up paying more than women even though we live longer.

true and because of these regular, once yearly visits to their gyno and regular test these women go through, they catch their diseases EARLIER, which is ALWAYS less costly treatments....more health care access and routine visits LOWERS the long term price of health care and EXTENDS ones life expectancy.

 

[Bfgrn]

That you are too stupid to grasp the meaning of peoples words, that is your problem, Bf, I am not gonna spend time teaching you the meaning of the word 'context'. And try not to wander off topic in a silly attempt to justify your stupidity.

YOU are going to teach the meaning of 'context'...WOW!!!

Actually, yes, I do. And I have no objection to it. And it's an excellent 'strawman' for 'death panels'.... but the death panels are not just about end of life counceling. They are about the kinds of things that Dr Emanuel talked about in the conclusions of one of the research documents used to 'inform' the health care bill. Ya know, the stuff about 'children under the age of two being not fully functioning human beings' and therefore 'less important' for treatment, along with the elderly, disabled people, etc. That's the death panel. What if it's your 2 yr old? Or your disabled relative who the government decide is 'not an appropriate use of resources'?

Cali girl, you are either really stupid or a disingenuous morally bankrupt partisan hack...

You applied Dr. Emanuel's research document Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions which is a study about allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines, a no win situation in which rationing is already happening solely because supply simply can't keep up with demand OUT OF CONTEXT that it would be "used to 'inform' the health care bill"

You really are as scummy as it gets...are you Political Chic in incognito?

Did Emanuel only write one research paper now? That's odd, because I have several. But I think the appropriate response to you is "Whatever".

I just don't like twisting facts to score political points. It's kinda dumb, in my opinion. But you carry one twisting. You're opinions are of no value to anyone with even an average intellect.

If you think I'm as scummy as it gets, you should look in a mirror, kid.

No? Well, you just DID...

You're right, Emanuel didn't write just one paper, but here's your problem, I've read the others too. So I know which paper you are referring to...

So now you are cornered; it's put up or shut up time...if you are not referring to Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions which he co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer...then you should be able to provide the paper you claim to be referring to... and we'll SEE who is scummy and who is telling the truth...

I'll be waiting...OK?