Memorandum To: Congressman mark meadows (r-NC)
Re: Insurance for stuff that will never happen to you
cc: Other Obamacare-hating galactic morons
I read where you have beef over the Obamacare requirement that health insurance policies cover pregnancies because as a 50 plus year old couple, you and your wife would not have need of that particular coverage. The penchant for you and other republicans to offer up a never ending stream of WTF comments certainly comes as no surprise. But to the extent that you and others earnestly want to know why an unmarried single male or an elderly couple or an unattached LGBT person should pay premiums that help cover the cost of medical procedures they will most likely never use, ol' DWillie is here to help you out once again. Lean in close so you can hear this answer. Ready? Here it is.
Because that's the way insurance works you idiot.
I had my cancerous prostate removed two years ago. A bunch of women - who, by the way, don't have prostates - paid premiums that helped fund the insurance claim related to that surgery. I have no intention of burning my house down and don't live in an area subject to drought, floods or tornados. But the premiums I pay on my homeowners' insurance help fund the rebuilding of homes obliterated by wildfires, tornados and floods, even if the homeowner knowingly bought a home built in a flood plain or in tornado alley. People who park their cars in garages pay premiums that help cover the replacement of cars stolen or damaged after being parked on the street. Insurance provides coverage for a bunch of people in a pool so that the cost of claims can be spread across as many people as possible, thus keeping the per-person cost as low as possible.
Did that help? If it didn't, there are other reasons why Obamacare coverage for maternity is a pretty reasonable idea, starting with the fact that we are going to pay for that pregnancy anyway through our taxes or through the overcharges hospitals put on care for covered people to pay for care for those without insurance. What's more, if difficulties occur in the pregnancy and delivery - possibly from a lack of prenatal care - we as taxpayers and as premium payers can wind up paying for the care of a permanently disabled person indefinitely. As well, though you and your wife may not be expecting, you may have children, nieces, nephews and other loved ones who are. As the parent of an adult child who may one day want to start a family himself, I welcome the option that Obamacare provides for him to buy coverage outside of his employer-sponsored benefits, assuming that his future employer offers them. I would want my future daughter-in-law to have access to prenatal care for my future grandchild. In short, even though my wife and I are no longer in the childbearing period of our lives, Obamacare maternity coverage remains a necessity that hits close to home.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't point out how appallingly self-centered your perspective is. Are you really arguing policy solely from your own perspective? I thought that Congresspeople had these folks called constituents who they supposedly represent. I would be surprised if all of the constituents in your district are beyond childbearing years. What you are saying with your badgering is that you really don't give a damn about them. You don't give a damn about young people unable to find work with employers who offer insurance benefits. You don't give a damn about that young woman interested in starting a new business or a person who lost benefits after being laid off from a job. There are plenty of words that describe a person who thinks like you do. "Congressman" isn't one of them.