Saturday, September 26, 2009

Women, Health Care and Universal Exclusion?

Are we really saying to save insurance costs we need exclude women's health care and treatment because a portion of the population does not and cannot make use of said treatment?

This is a brief exchange between Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ. The topic? Including maternal care in insurance coverage.

Wait a minute. Even before her interjection I'm thinking; women carry babies. It is currently an exclusively female function of reproduction.

Senator Kyl does not want to pay or have included the additional insurance costs of providing maternal care for women. He does not anticipating himself being pregnant so why should he have to pay for medical care specific to women.

By extension this would also mean:
  • Couldn't scare up a quarter for postpartum depression,
  • Not a dime for breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer or and related conditions.
  • Not a nickle to explore how heart symptoms and heart disease in women is different than in the menfolk?

My nipples are not valued as much as the gonads? If this is true, then we have gone ape shit crazy.

If I don't have an Adam's apple this should disqualify me from medical treatment that is different from a man?

I would never question "why do I have to pay for men's health and medications exclusively used by men?" God knows I've busted out a few "enhancement" jokes but the reality is there is a legitimate medical reason for those male specific drugs. Cancer treatment by radiation is one of them.

In no reality would I say that because I do not have a prostate that we should not pay for treatment of prostate cancer.

Senator Kyl, I'm guessing no one in your family has Sickle Cell Anemia either? So hell, don't need to treat that sucker; scratch it off the list. Tay-Sachs Disease? Yeah, we can save a few more pennies but not treating that either.

Do you see where we are heading? We are suppose to be talking about universal coverage, not universal exclusions. Take the freaking insurance out of the discussion and get back to the concept of providing health care for Americans.

Otherwise we are in a dead heat for the stupidest nation on earth.


  1. I don't know which I find more insane - 'why should I pay for women Kyl' - or 'the focus on female cancers is selfish' by The Thinking Housewife:

  2. OMG. That was just...whacked. I have never heard or had it implied that breast cancer is a form of victimization or a promoter of prurient interest.

    I think extreme conservatives/GOP'er have jumped the shark for sure. This isn't about policy or expense. This is about tearing everything down that does not fit their template of life.

    Scary. Thanks for the link and yeah, insanity abounds.