“a subsidy for having a penis”

I can only wish I had written that phrase. It should be copyrightable.

Thank you, heh. I was afraid it might be going a bit too far, rhetorically speaking.

And it is copyrightable, I suppose, though I’m not sure what copyright applies to stuff you write here on the FDL group blog apparatus thing. My own blog I keep meaning to update to be Creative Commons 3.0, but I’m lazy.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. ty.

Of course the phrase would work better if it was actually true but then you can say that about any feminist slogan.

The bill currently financially favour women over men. Just like always.

No, no, that was fine.

A woman on the front page comment thread said male children should be genitally mutilated to make up for this bill. That’s the standard you’re competing with.

But as I said the bill financially benefits women over men. (Now you know that I bet you’ll rush off to write a diary complaining about how men are oppressed, right?)

Financially favors women over men, how, exactly? In that women tend to see the doctor more than men and thus stand more to save?

Show your work please. I showed mine.

Hah. Men are oppressed in America, that’s cute.

This bill (as amended) denies women a broad class of necessary treatments within health insurance plans on the Exchange. Those treatments are safer than, and have a lower mortality rate than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Therefore it isn’t just costing women money to purchase health care riders for abortion coverage. The bill, as it stands, increases the risk of death compared with the industry standard, where 87% of private health plans cover abortion.

Increased risk of death. Increased cost. For what reason? Because Stupak believes that he can win the approval of an invisible man in the sky through his brightly garbed, confirmed bachelors/servants here on earth?

Finally, as to the genital mutilation thing: what do you want me to say? Eww? There are nasty comments on the interweb? Oh lord no!

To clear things up: I didn’t think my line about a subsidy for having a penis went too far. It’s factual. I just wasn’t sure it flowed very well… a tax on women necessarily implies a subsidy for men, by the absence of the tax. So the last sentence is a bit redundant for rhetorical effect.

It seems to play ok though. Glad I left it in.

i’m glad you left it in too.

I’m still puzzled by how the bill is financially favorable to women. It bans gender rating, so a man and a woman with the same health history should, in theory, pay the same premium.

Then the woman gets less care.

Less value for the same dollar… is favorable?

Is this like a death panel thing? You know, how it’s only in the bill if you squint really hard, bite your tongue, turn your head on its side… and shove it right up your own ass?

It really should be copyrighted. It’s the truth, and to the point, so to speak. I’m going to spread it around, if you don’t mind.

Penis is its own subsidy.

That said, wouldn’t health care and the individual mandate all be more acceptable if the health bill guaranteed:

1. Liposuction, so many Americans are too fat.
2. Breast enlargement surgery
3. Penis enlargement surgery.

If we’ve got to be held like animals in a corporate veal pen, forced to give our money to the finance, real estate and insurance system as the price of mere existence, then let’s at least provide services that make us all hotter so that we can have some inexpensive fun as we slave to feed the machine.

I’d question your notion of ‘inexpensive’ fun there, but otherwise, sure. However, since they got their way without letting us have it, why should they throw even a token bone our way?

I’m just waiting for a Long Walk competition to start up, or something along the lines of gladiator matches (the real ones, not the silly fighting with giant q-tips ones).

Or is American Idol close enough?

I’d question your notion of ‘inexpensive’ fun there, but otherwise, sure.

Laser eye surgery used to be expensive until they figured out how to automate it.

I’d imagine that the economies of scale would allow for the perfection of cost effective liposuction, and the reclamation of such an energy laden substance could be used renewable fuel.

Given the expense and risk of the financial sector, I’d prefer to see a self referential medical infrastructure arise that at least made us hotter.

I’d also imagine that including such benefits in a Medicare for All plan would ensure that 2/3 of Americans would support it without the need for a campaign.

Sometimes, it is easier to attract bees with honey rather than vinegar.

I had laser eye surgery, actually. Not what I’d call cheap, but cheaper than a lifetime of glasses.

I’m not sure making us hotter is a great goal for a healthcare system, though :P