Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. questions Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the implementation failures of the Affordable Care Act, Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2013, on Capitol Hill in Washington. CREDIT: AP Photo/Susan Walsh.
At a hearing markup on Wednesday, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) suggested that one reason Republicans object to Obamacare is that men have to pay for plans that cover maternity services, such as prenatal care.
The heated exchange happened during a lengthy markup session for the GOP’s Obamacare replacement bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Shimkus was responding to a question from Rep. Michael Doyle (D-PA), who asked a different colleague which mandates in Obamacare he took issue with.
“What mandate in the Obamacare bill does he take issue with?” Doyle asked. “Certainly not with pre-existing conditions, or caps on benefits or letting your child stay on the policy until 26, so I’m curious what is it we’re mandating?”
“What about men having to purchase prenatal care?” Shimkus butted in. “Is that not correct? And should they?”
Here’s a thought, you dimwitted dipstick – men are involved with the process of pregnancy. If you’re truly deadset on not paying for prenatal care, then perhaps you should propose a healthy penis penalty – everyone who is using one has to pay into a healthcare fund for reproductive care, including parental leave. After all, if you’re not going to pay attention to where you’re shooting that tarse, and refuse to take responsibility, I don’t see why women should have to bear the full cost. While you’re at it, increase that penis penalty by another ten percent – this can go into a fund providing accessible and affordable contraception, something else that really cuts down on costs, but you manage to be against that one, too. Oh, let’s tack on another ten percent – it could go to opt in sexual education classes, for everyone!
The fact that prenatal care, which results in healthy women and infants, is an excellent preventative act, and it’s certainly much cheaper to practice than the catastrophic costs involved when there is no care, and things go very wrong, doesn’t seem to matter to republicans. The most obvious practicalities can’t seem to penetrate the density of their ignorance and entitlement.
You can read about the whole mess, in-depth, at Think Progress.
Where does he think he came from?
An egg? Cabbage patch? Stork?
One might also note that pre-natal care is of great benefit to those about to be born. About half of whom will be men.
Kind of gives the lie to all their histrionic wittering about protecting the unborn doesn’t it?
Since you won’t contribute to prenatal care, how about you also don’t get to have a say in how the child is raised either? Afterall, you didn’t want to have anything to do with the baby’s and the mother’s health as it was developing. Why the interest all of a sudden after nine months?
Also, it really should not have to be pointed out that many men are thrilled to find out they will be fathers; they also often happen to be quite attached to the woman involved, and have a vested interest in their health. I fail to see how prenatal care devolves to a woman only business in the the rethuglican mind.
If the man gets injured in an accident and is stuck at home, does his wife get to say, “why do I have to pay for it????”
Teach the controversy!
… tarse …
Hadn’t heard of that locution before -- thanks!
As for Shimkus, he clearly sees no value in families.
Pierce:
Medieval English slang. Wonderful stuff!
Saad:
You have no idea just how much I wish you had been at that hearing, just to fire that question at Mr. Misogyny.
I propose that all men who hand in their cut off dicks get exemption from having to pay for prenatal care.
Any bets that the guy is also “pro life”?
Kengi@#1:
Where does he think he came from?
Aristotle believed that worms spontaneously generated out of corruption. So maybe that’s what’s happening here.
As a man who has absolutely no intention of ever having kids, I’m more than happy to pay for prenatal care. And education… Why? Because I’m not a selfish monster, and I like living in a functioning society. Can’t remember the last time I was in a library, but I’m happy to pay for those too.
However, I’m not a huge fan of paying for the military…
Why should you pay for it? Because you are human. Or at least, outward appearances would suggest so.
This is so weird. These people do not seem to realize that over half the human population (in general) is **not** heterosexual men. And guess what, it’s our government too. That means it’s also FOR US. It is not just for heterosexual men.
And Caine, @#2: I think he was carried around in a manure cart. I’ve lived on a farm long enough to recognize what’s on my boots when I step in it.
Dunc@#13:
I’m with you! I don’t mind paying for other people’s kids’ educations -- for example -- because it means I’m less likely to be surrounded by horrible kids. And if they’re in school maybe they will grow up to be interesting and productive and they’ll stay offa my lawn while they’re doing it. It’s win/win/win.
You’re 100% right: it’s the cost of having a functioning society. These idiots want to create a really shitty world for themselves to live in.
Marcus:
Oh no, this is not the world they live in. They just want everyone else stuck down in the snakepit.
Also, another childfree person here, and no, I don’t mind paying into a system which provides healthcare for all, or education, or any other good thing. We were all sprogs at one point, and we all benefit from a strong system which provides care.
I’m with Dunc @13 on this one. Can I opt out of any of my taxes going for military expenditures? Maybe if we cut down some of that spending, the money could actually be spent on actually helping citizens of this country, something the republicans obviously refuse to consider.
I know it is unintentional and the anger on the original topic is entirely warranted, but some of the snark in the OP and comments here is veering uncomfortably close to transphobia -- eg., it may be be solely a matter of vocabulary, but ‘men with cut off dicks’ is exactly what TERFs and their ilk call trans women.
Abbycadabra
For what it’s worth, when I say men, I mean men. Trans women don’t feature at all.
abbeycadabra:
No, it isn’t, really. I was thinking about lesbian couples, pregnant men, and other relationships while writing, but here’s the thing -- as far as rethugs are concerned, there’s only hetero men and women involved in the discussion, they don’t give a shit where anyone else falls, and where prenatal care is concerned, that affects pregnant people specifically, to the rethugs, this means a woman only issue.
As for Giliell’s comment, I don’t think it could be clearer, but read it as “every hetero man who hands in his cut off dick…” because she makes the same point I do, that hetero men are excused and absolved of any and all responsibility when it comes to pregnancy.
I understood what was meant. I said it was unintentional. I’m telling you what it feels like to read this, despite that.
never mind. this sort of thing doesn’t matter and never did.
abbeycadabra:
Yes, it does. And it should matter. I apologize for causing you discomfort, that it was not intentional doesn’t matter. While I was thinking of the wider issues as I wrote, I deliberately chose to not address those, going for a narrower focus. I should not have done that, when I could have taken the time to make myself much more clear and inclusive. I will try to do better in the future.
I also apologize for coming off as such an asshole as to dismiss your concerns.
For what it is worth, I do not mind that my taxes go to to someone else’s health care, or that I pay higher percentual taxes than someone with lower income. I even think that German’s progressive taxation is great and still maybe too soft with too many possible loopholes that only those well-off can exploit. But that is tangential.
What is more on point is that USAmerican Republicans do not seem to understand even the bare basics of governance and economy. Like when the new champion for the yuuuge biglliest healthcare reform in history, Trumps pet goblin Paul Ryan does not understand how insurance works.
abbycadabra
I’m sorry for the discomfort.
I think it’s probably one of the areas where intersection fails, where the needs and discourses around cis women and hetero cis men are exclusionary by their nature.
Charly
It’s a good principle but a fucking mess in reality, but that’s a different discussion.
Rates for public healthcare are capped. You pay a certain percentage of your income (and your employer as well, unless you’re a Beamter like me, then you’Re fucked), but only to a certain limit. Over that limit you’d be allowed to change to private insurance where you pay according to your calculated risk. In order to keep people in the public insurance there’s a cap.
John Shimkus. Now I remember him. He’s a down-stater here (a joke in Illinois is that the Mason Dixon line runs down the center of 95th St. in Chicago) who was one of the early reps who denied climate change by quoting Genesis as proof that man can’t destroy the Earth. On the bright side, he once voted in favor of LGBT rights, but only because he mistakenly hit the “yea” button instead of the “nay” button.
Just once, I wish they’d complain about cis women having to pay for cover for testicular cancer.
Incidentally, why does my life insurance cover both fatal injury and terminal illness? I’m not gonna die of both!
Do they not understand that insurance always covers things you’re not going to have to deal with in your life or something? The trick is that it also covers things that you are going to have to deal with.
@Caine, @Giliell
thank you for understanding, i apologize for the derailing.
abbeycadabra:
No need, and that was not a derail in any way. You had a relevant concern, and you absolutely should have brought it up.
Anyroad, with my tiny commentariat, I prefer to view commentary as a conversation, which may wander as it will.