top 200 commentsshow all 224

[–]HAMMURABl 52 points53 points  (25 children)

here is how switzerland tackled the EU laws:

EU law: - make it illegal for health insurers to charge different rates based on gender

Switzerland: - make it illegal for health insurers to charge different rates based on gender, but allow each individual to choose the amount he is willing to pay each year in case he gets sick (i.e. the amount after which the health insurer will start coverage).

obviously, men choose a very high amount (and as a consequence pay lower rates), while women choose a very small amount (and as a consequence pay higher rates).

[–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 54 points55 points  (21 children)

allow each individual to choose the amount he is willing to pay each year in case he gets sick

We have it this way in the US, too. It's called a deductible. It's the primary driving force behind the premium. If you choose a $6,000 deductible, your plan will cost less than if you choose a $1,000 deductible.

But it's still not fair because, despite the man's lower risk of illness, he's exposed to higher risk of financial ruin than a comparative woman who's paying an undeservedly lower premium for a lower deductible.


Bob used to pay $200/month for a $1,000 deductible plan, and Betty used to pay $275/month for a $1,000 deductible plan. But under Obamacare, the insurance company has raised Bob's rate to $275/month for NO OTHER REASON than to make it equal to Betty's premium. Bob didn't get diabetes, Bob didn't start a career as a stunt driver. Just because "equality" and shit.

So under the Swiss model (aka Obamacare model, it's really the same thing), in order to get his premium back down to $200/month, he has to assume a new deductible of $4,000. Betty goes for a physical twice a year, she sees an OBGYN once a quarter, and gets her birth control filled monthly with a $0 copay while ABC Insurance Company pays the pharmacy $100 on the back end.

Betty will routinely hit her $1,000 deductible (the point where her exposure becomes a "coinsurance" percentage or, if her MOOP is equal to deductible, she would have full, 100% coverage for the rest of the calendar year), but if something catastrophic happens to her, she will be fully covered for the injury because she's already hit her deductible.

But Bob, who never uses his insurance, had to take lower levels of coverage (and therefore assume a more crippling level of financial risk), just to get his monthly premium back down to the $200/month he should be RIGHTFULLY paying because Bob's mother is lucky if she can drag him in to the doctor for a physical once every other year.

But if Bob decides to take on an Alpha lifestyle, starts lifting weights, and an unlikely accident happens and he drops a weight on his foot and has a compound fracture, he's out $4,000 under his new plan, where he would have been out only $1,000 under his OLD plan, the one he had before Obama started fucking with an industry he knows nothing about.


Everything about the health insurance industry was the way it was for good, logical reasons. Uprating for pre-ex, declining high risk patients, and charging women more was all based on what we call "Experience Assessments". They used factual, verifiable medical loss data to assess premiums in a way that reasonably met the needs of the client AND kept the insurance company financially viable. Now the whole system is fucked.

edit because reasons

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why do they even care about EU law?

[–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 142 points143 points  (132 children)

I'm an insurance agent and I find many of the aspects of Obamacare maddening, but I find this one particularly stupid. Insurance is about assessing and assuming RISK. So in health insurance, they are assessing the risk that someone will cost them more healthcare dollars than someone else.

And the cold, hard truth is that women use healthcare more than men. Period. They get sick more, they go to the doctor more, they use OBGYN's where as men don't, and they are more likely to use hospitals. Women are far more likely to need psychiatric care. And of course more than 25% of women over age 45 are on expensive prescription anti-depressants that the insurance company is paying for. Because men view themselves as physically stronger, they typically won't use healthcare services until and unless it's really, really needed.

This is why women's premium were, and still should be, more than men.

This goes along the lines of "no more excluding pre-existing conditions". If you go 30 years without health insurance, without paying premiums, and now you're 58 years old with colon cancer, skin cancer, HBP, shitty LDL, and diabetes, oh, NOW you want health insurance? Go fuck off. That's like trying to get homeowner's insurance after you burned your house down.

But yes, OP is right in general. Between lowering women's premiums (thereby increasing men's premiums), mandating free birth control, mandatory pediatric dental and vision, and a slew of other parts of Obamacare, this new law is really all about transferring wealth to women (poor women, specifically, who ta-da! also happen to usually be single mothers) at the expense of men.

What they can't get directly through child extort from the man dumb enough to bareback crazy, they'll get from the rest of male society indirectly via the heavy hand of government.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)


    [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 39 points40 points  (5 children)

    That's my point. Insurance is by it's very nature discriminatory. Wanna buy a house on the beach? Flood insurance is gonna fuck your asshole so deep it'll knock out your teeth. Outlawing discrimination based on gender would be like outlawing car insurance discriminating based on car model. Insuring your Civic would cost exactly the same as insuring your neighbor's Jaguar F Type. But hey, equality!

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    "Excuse me but stop being cis-housing exclusive! I deserve free flood insurance because I'm a free spirit and can't live in stuffy crowded areas due to my gluten allergy!"

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)


      [–]tits_out_forTheBoys 12 points13 points  (0 children)

      Honestly fuck equality.

      No one is equal, everyone is unique.

      [–]MagnanimousGenius 11 points12 points  (0 children)

      but to even question women doing something wrong? In that case it usually turns into "Well, MEN ARE WORSE AT IT!" Like you said though, hey, equality!

      I have not yet encountered a single woman who will have a reasoned, objective conversation and view about "gender discrimination" They only care about "equality" if it benefits them

      [–]ont_anon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Don't even get me started on texting and driving.

      SO's mother hit the same PARKED car a half block from her house on two different occasions because she was texting while driving. But I'm told it's not that big a deal. "Accidents happen! HARHARHAR!" It's not often that I'm left speechless, but jeezus...

      [–]daredcan 11 points12 points  (0 children)

      I still have to pay for the same auto insurance for being a young male and no one gives a shit and not that they should. People love kissing women's asses and it amazes me that white-knight betas and manginas are running our country now.

      [–]ShinyBrah 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      I wonder what's going to happen once everyone gets a "fair" go with all of these stupid laws people are pushing.

      I swear western society will collapse in the next 20 years.

      [–]hipst 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      It would seem a collapse is what the people in power are trying to accomplish to achieve their ends. Cloward-Piven.

      [–]reigntastic 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      The point about car insurance is far too true.

      I'm 20 years old, and I drive a 2012 FWD hatchback, with under 200hp. It costs more to insure, than it does to own. I really can't wrap my mind around why that is legal, and why I'm unable to negotiate for lower rates. My driving record is spotless.

      [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Are you under 25? The industry has assumed that all males under 25 are shithead drivers. I'm not saying it's right, wrong, or indifferent. Just saying that's the way it is. Insurance companies assess risk based on "groups". Period.

      [–]tenthirtyone1031 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      Here's a report that backs you up. I try to keep data sheets handy

      [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Great link, thanks. I was basing my assertions only on work experience, but statistical data always trumps anecdotal evidence.

      [–]tenthirtyone1031 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      NP. I fall under the libertarian umbrella. I know the pain of making a point, showing the data and the other person still not getting it.

      [–]redbluepilling 40 points41 points  (84 children)

      But yes, OP is right in general. Between lowering women's premiums (thereby increasing men's premiums), mandating free birth control, mandatory pediatric dental and vision, and a slew of other parts of Obamacare, this new law is really all about transferring wealth to women (poor women, specifically, who ta-da! also happen to usually be single mothers) at the expense of men.

      The concept is designed for the betterment of society at whole. Free birth control is going to cost less than the burden of dealing with welfare mothers popping out kids. Now imagine these single mothers that do stay poor and do not get support for their kids. The child is already at a disadvantage at not fault of his own, lacks a father figure, and then doesn't get basic support to live a healthyish life. If that happens (and it has, of course), we're allowing the production of some pretty fucked up kids that suddenly grow up and are part of our society. In the western world, and particularly with trp, we like to consider ourselves islands. But look around at where you're living and you have an obligation to support that society. The strong have to begrudgingly support the weak for the betterment of all. I say begrudgingly because they'll never do what you want to do or improve how you think they should, but you understand why they do what they do, unquestioning and floating along in mediocrity or poverty. And with understanding should come acceptance.

      edit: There are parallels here with what we're working towards with trp. There's lots of bitterness and resentment around what I said. That's where acceptance comes in. If you've improved yourself to the point where you're not struggling financially, you're able to pay to support the collective betterment of society. Being angry about it or failing to see it in the big picture is on you. This is exactly the same as being angry at women for hypergamy. It's your character flaw.

      [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 26 points27 points  (15 children)

      The concept is designed for the betterment of society at whole. Free birth control is going to cost less than the burden of dealing with welfare mothers popping out kids.

      If a woman can't afford birth control, here's a novel concept: stop fucking, or let the man who's fucking her buy her birth control. And if poor women fuck and fuck and pop out 5 kids and ends up homeless, we take her kids into foster care and place them with one of the tens of thousands of infertile couples who financially have their shit together. The more we reward the bad behavior of single mothers, the more we will see of it.

      Besides. If MY TAX DOLLARS are going to fund a woman's birth control, shouldn't I be getting some action from these women? I (we) are literally paying sluts to have sex by subsidizing their birth control. I say I at least deserve a blow job for my gratuity.

      The strong have to begrudgingly support the weak for the betterment of all. I say begrudgingly because they'll never do what you want to do or improve how you think they should, but you understand why they do what they do, unquestioning and floating along in mediocrity or poverty. And with understanding should come acceptance.

      I don't have to understand or accept shit. I may tolerate it, but I don't have to accept it. Two different things. I have no problem with charity or helping others so long as it's of my own volition and accord. I happily donate to Wounded Warriors and other organizations I support. But see, it's because I choose to. If I wasn't being extorted by the government to support single mothers, I'd never support them. Let them go homeless and take the kids into foster care. If they never suffer the repercussions of their actions, they will never cease doing it.

      Benjamin Franklin said it best:

      “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ― Benjamin Franklin

      [–]hipst 25 points26 points  (1 child)

      Or as they say in the national parks:

      Don't feed the bears

      [–]SpawnQuixote 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      You fucking made me laugh.


      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–]studiov34 -2 points-1 points  (10 children)

        Rush Limbaugh, is that you?

        [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 7 points8 points  (9 children)

        haha! you got my Sandra Fluke reference. But was he wrong? If taxpayers are gonna pay for Sandra's BC, shouldn't we get some sort of action?

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)


          [–]studiov34 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          When I found out my county health department (FUNDED WITH MY TAX DOLLARS) was giving out free mammograms, I was so outraged I marched down to the clinic and demanded the fat old lady running the place let me watch them perform them.

          I mean if they're using MY TAX DOLLARS to take pictures of women's breasts for whatever "medical" reason du jour, I should at least get to enjoy it!

          The white knight police officer who showed up soon after didn't see it the same way.

          [–]bh3244 17 points18 points  (20 children)

          if people feel so strongly about free birth control, why don't those people donate money to a charity that provides it?

          [–]IkilledJarJar 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          Economics 100. People won't do anything unless there is an incentive. And Bill Gates is too busy fighting malaria in Africa.

          And there are charities already, but they won't have a national impact unless taxpayers pay. Planned parenthood for example.

          [–]cooledcannon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          Exactly. Since its not a strong incentive to solve the problem, we shouldnt.

          [–]Philhelm 31 points32 points  (37 children)

          I disagree that we have an obligation to be Beta Bux for welfare queens because of some vague concept of "society."

          [–]lordofthejelly 29 points30 points  (35 children)

          Sometimes you're going to pay that piper, no matter which way you go...what /u/redbluepilling is saying is that we're all better off paying for her birth control now, and not getting mugged, robbed, or murdered by her son in 15 years

          [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 55 points56 points  (32 children)

          But we already have free birth control, and out-of-wedlock births, and kids that grow up to be shitheads because they were raised by a shitty single mother. Access to the birth control isn't the problem. A woman can walk into any Planned Parenthood office and get free condoms and birth control.

          The problem is that single motherhood is more attractive than committing to a man. Government provides women all of the financial support they need to raise their kids (financial support that men used to provide), while at the same time getting rid of the responsibility and committing to a single man (eww that's so paytrearkee) to secure those resources.

          The new formula is:

          1. Fuck alpha men, obtain seed
          2. Collect child extort
          3. Collect welfare to pay expenses child extort doesn't cover
          4. Get validated by society for being a "strong independent womyn who's "doing it all"
          5. Go back to fucking and discarding random alphas until Wall
          6. Hit wall and find Beta Bux to cuckold her kids until they are 18
          7. Divorce the man and collect his alimony
          8. Adopt cats to fill emotional void left by no man and kids gone from home

          The very idea of single motherhood used to (rightfully) be a terrifying proposition for a woman. It used to mean social shame, family shame, and a hard life of poverty living in a small apartment. Not anymore. Every single mother I know has a flat screen TV, an iPhone, a designer purse, and gets her "nails did" whenever she wants, and leaves the kids with grandma on Saturday night to go to "the club" to find the next alpha cock to hop on. All without being bothered with devoting to a man. What's not to like?

          [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          Every single mother I know has a flat screen TV, an iPhone, a designer purse, and gets her "nails did" whenever she wants, and leaves the kids with grandma on Saturday night to go to "the club" to find the next alpha cock to hop on.

          Holy shit so many different people I know popped into my mind while reading that. You framed it perfectly

          [–]lordofthejelly 17 points18 points  (29 children)

          Trust me, I am fully cognizant of all of that, it's basic TRP 101. So let me rephrase:

          1. Just because women are far less scared of single motherhood than they used to be does not mean that all women are seeking to become single moms. You give out free birth control, a reasonably significant percentage of them are going to use it.

          2. If we don't give high-risk (read: poor) women free birth control, few-to-none of them will use it. Most will become single moms, with shithead kids who have alpha genes and high testosterone but no meaningful father figures.

          My point being, if even 1 in 5 shitheads is never born because mommy used free government-provided birth control, then we're probably better off paying for the free birth control than dealing with her shithead kid later on.

          Also, take a look at U.S. crime rates over the last 40 years. What you'll notice is a sharp drop, starting right around 18 years after Roe vs. Wade. What happened? A lot boys who would've grown up poor with a single mom and turned to crime were simply never born.

          As perverse as it is, free birth control to women who can't afford it will often pay for itself many times over in the long run for that exact reason.

          Edited to add I would point out too, there are some battles you can win, and some that aren't even worth fighting. Using a combination of incentives, shame, and fear to keep women from becoming single mothers (the old system) is simply not a battle that we can fight right now, much less have any hope of winning.

          A man picks his battles. If two alternatives are bad, pick the less bad one and withdraw...we as men may be withdrawing, but that doesn't mean can't influence things toward the less bad of two shitty alternatives in the meantime.

          The real battle royale is probably still many years hence, but that doesn't mean our actions today won't make it more or less difficult then...if my actions today can make things easier when push comes to shove, great.

          [–]GuitarHero07 34 points35 points  (17 children)

          The only way to significantly reduce a behavior is to disincentivize it. If we are not encouraging single motherhood, we are certainly making it easy and even appealing for some.

          What happened a few decades ago when a woman got knocked up out of wedlock? She was shamed by society, her child was labelled a bastard and she would have to bear the burden on her own.

          Today? She gets free healthcare, free housing and a nice stipend. A single mother can easily make more "income" and "benefits" by not working and being a productive member of society.

          Free birth control is widely available. As a doctor, I've referred plenty of patients to free/low cost healthcare resources: Project Access, Medicaid, free clinics, religious hospitals, county health departments and free clinics. If a woman wants birth control, it is widely available for little to no cost.

          We have to let people face the consequences of their decisions instead of bailing them out for their shitty decisions. Personal responsibility is a concept that is totally lost in this country today.

          Also, there's a heck of a lot more factors than just abortion that can explain the decrease in crime rates. The Wikipedia article points many of them out. I'm pro-abortion by the way.

          [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 16 points17 points  (4 children)

          Send me a pm and remind me to Delta this post when I'm on my PC at work tomorrow. Brilliant contribution, and you said better what I was trying to say.

          Hell, I deal in Medicare, and for most Medicare bennies, they can only change plans during the Open Enrollment Period. But if you're a poor (usually 9/10) woman who's also on Medicaid, she can change Medicare Advantage plans all year long. That's a HUGE benefit in the 65 and up healthcare market. Why? Because in most states, men generally don't qualify for Medicaid, even if they're low income and living on the streets. Society doesn't give two shits about men, but will coddle a woman literally from cradle to grave.

          [–]likechoklit4choklit 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          This is worthy of further study and empirical analysis.

          Do the disparate medicaid structures ultimately come from a 1.) "men are disposal" militaristic social structure? or 2.) an elevation of the female before all else? Or 3.) a social agreement that acknowledges that children don't choose to be born, so we sometimes need to subsidize their caretaker in order to take care of any given kid, so at least they have a shot, even if they were born in a bad situation?

          I think the apparent medicaid disparity is a compromise of 1 and 3. To a militarized society, men ARE disposable. Women have only joined the fighting force, like frontline fighting force, in the past 15 years, and they don't need to file for selective service. So our society, going all the way back to the original founders, put women out of combat's way. Sociobiologically speaking, it makes some sense; you protect young mothers and maintain a stock of breeders for your culture. Tactically and numerically, it may not: you could theoretically expand your needed fighting force by at least 50%. In fact, it would make a ton of sense to have army regiments comprised of older women (40s-60s) that fight not only for an abstract sense of country, but to protect that country of whatever kids she has raised.

          A decent social safety net is important for any community or culture. What are we fighting to protect if our entire culture sucks ass? So those disparate medicaid rates is a proxy for what used to happen. If one of your tribe members became ill or lame or dead, their kids, assuming they were weaned, would get floated by additional efforts of a few people in the tribe. The dynamic is much different now, but the premise remains: as a collective, we have an obligation to the next generation.

          [–]GuitarHero07 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          That support doesn't need to come from Big Daddy Government though. There are family members, religious organizations and charities that can provide support to the truly needy. Poverty has only increased since the rise of the welfare state.

          [–]ISODAK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Subsidizing the caretaker has proven to be disaster for the kids, by leading to lots of shitty caretakers who use the money to subsidize themselves, and treat their kids like shit.

          As JP_Whoregan suggested elsewhere, if someone can't afford a baby, they should not be allowed to raise that baby. The kid will have much better chances with a responsible couple who wants to adopt than with a crazy single mother.

          [–]lordofthejelly 5 points6 points  (4 children)

          The only way to significantly reduce a behavior is to disincentivize it.

          I don't disagree, the problem is that this is not a battle we are capable of even fighting at this point, much less winning.

          In light of that, we have to start picking and choosing between which alternatives are less shitty.

          We have to let people face the consequences of their decisions instead of bailing them out for their shitty decisions.

          1. Women are not, generally, forward-thinking creatures. That's been the man's job since time immemorial. Men tracked the caribou migrations, men tracked when to plant and when to harvest, men tracked the salmon runs. You get the idea.
          2. Men respond to economic incentives, women respond to social incentives.
          3. Letting women "face the consequences of their actions" is not going to stop younger women from making the same mistakes...her tingles don't give a shit about how Betty and Sally are living in poverty, and will convince her in the moment that Joe McDoucheBag will stick around after he ejaculates.
          4. Any attempt to shame or restrict women's behavior using social incentives is going to run into a wall of feminist opposition. We are guerillas, we are not capable of fighting an open battle like that. Much less even having a hope of winning it. In 20 years, maybe. Today, no.

          So. Realistically, we can't restrict the bad behavior. We can't shame it in large enough numbers to make a dent. We can't educate it away. We can't even defund it. In open field of battle that is today's politics, we have about as much power as that mosquito buzzing by your ear right now. We can be a little annoying, that's about it.

          But assuming that things will have shifted in 20 years to where we could consider openly fighting such a battle, what can we do and support now to make things easier then?

          In my opinion: Even if free birth control only reduces the number of single-mothered kids by 5-10%, as an investment it still pays for itself many times over (given the other constraints I just mentioned).

          I get it, things like free birth control are not a solution. But at this point, all I'm looking for is something that's less shitty than the alternative.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)


            [–]lordofthejelly 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            We are going to lose ground to women for the foreseeable future in the political arena, that's just the way it is in our fem-centric society. "Enjoy the decline" as captain capitalism says.

            If we don't give out free birth control, more women are going to keep popping out their bastard spawn than if we don't. Those women are going to demand tax dollars to feed, raise, and imprison those bastard spawn, and in our feminized societies they are going to receive it.

            If giving inches on free birth control means there is fewer miles for them to pillage on free child support, that's about as close to a win as we're going to get at this point.

            [–]Yoda7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Then we deny a corrupt society of our essence.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)


              [–]likechoklit4choklit 0 points1 point  (4 children)

              If you want to disincentivize single motherhood, instate penalties for ejaculating into her without a fucking condom or prophylactic measure. It takes two to fuck.

              Why is there so little ownership of behaviors on this particular thread? Single mothers on welfare is one problem, but so are the motherfuckers cumming inside them. Your welfare is subsidizing their easy, consequence free, lay.

              [–]GuitarHero07 6 points7 points  (3 children)

              There already are penalties for ejaculating into them: 18-21 years of child support.

              [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              Fucking bingo. You said what I was just getting ready to say. There is plenty of "ownership" for men who foolishly bareback a crazy bitch who's got the "Baby Rabies" and pulled an "oopsy" on her birth control. And you can be imprisoned indefinitely without legal representation for NOT taking "ownership".

              Secondly, the decision to have a baby or not is 100% up to the woman, not the man. Women have 11 different forms of contraception available to them, men have one. If she chooses not to use one of those 11 forms of birth control, she's trying to have a baby, in this modern day in age.

              that delta was for the last one that got deleted btw

              [–]hipst 10 points11 points  (7 children)

              1: Wrong. There are active exploiters of social services that do EXACTLY THAT. High school children who get pregnant and pop out kiddies as a STATUS SYMBOL, and they know that daddy state will take care of them.

              2: Giving them birth control won't make them use it. Stopping the gravy train cold just might.

              [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

              This is what I'm trying to say. As long as the "gravy train" keeps rolling, we are going to see single motherhood keep growing and growing. I don't care if they put birth control pills in fucking candy dispenser machines at the local WalMart.

              I'm fully convinced that, even the women who proclaim to not want kids, if they do get knocked up, don't really give a shit, and if they receive enough external validation, will lean more towards having the baby even if daddy doesn't want it. They know they're covered on the back end. Government will use tax dollars to stabilize her safety net, and she'll receive social validation and endless attention for having a baby and posting the pictures on Facebook, all the while shaming the father because he's "absent" in the childs life even though he didn't want the kid in the first place.

              [–]lordofthejelly 8 points9 points  (2 children)

              1: Wrong. There are active exploiters of social services that do EXACTLY THAT.

              I never said that there aren't. My point is, if you give out free birth control some women will use it, and that only a small percentage need to actually use it for it to be worthwhile on our part.

              Giving them birth control won't make them use it.

              Again, only a small percentage need to actually use it for it to be worthwhile on our part.

              Stopping the gravy train cold just might.

              Not really. Women respond to social incentives, men are the ones who respond to economic incentives.

              I get it, free birth control is not a solution. Social shaming, that's a solution.

              Problem is, there is no way in hell that an actual solution could be which case, we're left with choosing between the less shitty of some shitty options.

              So, I have two alternatives in 2014:

              1. Give women free birth control, and let them follow their tingles.
              2. Let women follow their tingles with no birth control, and be more likely to get robbed/beaten/murdered by their shithead spawn in 15 years.

              Give me another option that won't be eviscerated by our feminized society, and I'll take it in a heartbeat. But I would bet every bitcoin I own that we are at least 10 years away from having the ability to even mention publicly another option.

              We live in a feminized society that has yet to realize the gravity of what's coming. Until it does, there's not much shit we can do aside from choosing between the less shitty options.

              [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              I will give you the point that society has collectively failed the feminism shit test. We've failed it again, and again, and again, and here we are, IMHO, on the brink of collapse. Feminism can only exist in safe, civil, decadent societies. Look at ancient Rome in the years just prior to it's collapse. The people were so safe from outside aggression, they started engaging in all forms of hedonism, and the collapse came from within, not from outside forces. Outside invaders came in later to mop up what was left of the mess.

              I see western society headed down the same road. I don't see how, even in the next 20 years, this can be changed. Modern technology is a facilitator of hedonism, not a hindrance to it. As technology improves, society will become ever more shameless.

              [–]lordofthejelly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I see western society headed down the same road. I don't see how, even in the next 20 years, this can be changed.

              If enough women see their older peers and wake up to the fact that CCing and careering will make probably them end up alone, then that alone would probably be enough to create a few societal earthquakes.

              The shift may or may not happen in the next few decades, but if it does it will probably look very similar to Dalrock's description here

              As I’ve mentioned before, women delaying marriage are playing a collective game of chicken in order to avoid wasting any more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary. Obviously not all women are playing this game, but those who are delaying marriage are implicitly betting that the men their own age or a few years older than them will ultimately decide marrying an older, less fertile, more demanding and more sexually promiscuous bride is better than not marrying at all. For this to work younger women need to continue to be driven by greed (therefore keeping up the marriage delaying trend), and the men in question need to be driven by fear of ending up alone. While we are seeing signs that it is getting more difficult for marriage delaying women on the margins, the basic bet has so far panned out.

              Still, there is always the risk that an inherent limit will be reached which could disrupt the strategy. For example, we already have an indication that delayed marriage is reducing the incentive for men to work to become providers. The risk here is that never married late twenties and early 30s women could start to panic, and this panic could spread to younger women. If early to mid twenties women were to switch from greed to fear, the older marriage delayers could end up being squeezed out of marriage by younger and more attractive brides.

              The media is already glamorizing the cougar, first to influence men into pursuing older women, but also to convince younger women not to utilize their inherent youthful advantages in pursuing commitment.

              If the media's myth of the cougar ever falls apart, some seismic societal shifts are probably not far off.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)


                [–]lordofthejelly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Basically, the country is going to collapse, and lessons like these need to be archived strongly in the hopes that one day future man will actually fucking learn.


                In addition to giving future generations the ability to learn from it, I would also hope to make the collapse less painful for them and easier for them to recover from...even 5% fewer bastard spawn running around will save us a lot of destruction when the time comes.

                It's still completely fucking wrong on principle though.

                I don't disagree, but the fact is we do not live in a principle-based society.

                Lots of beta bucks get married to post-wall women because that's the right thing to do "on principle." And what kind of thanks do they get for it?

                Just because something is right (or wrong) on principle doesn't make it the right (or wrong) path to pursue if women will just fuck you over for it.

                [–]2mbillion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I agree - I think the bump in insurance premiums costs me less than the alternative.

                [–]hipst 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                If certain, very wealthy, powerbrokers would simply STOP TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY, this would not be a problem.

                [–]sunwukong15 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                Fuck that shit. That's why you get a conceal and carry license and get a gun. And support the second amendment on the side, fuck that shit. If you want the government to protect you from bad guys you mind as well move back in with mommy.

                [–]hipst 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                Agreed, why do we have to pay because Madame Welfare decided not to keep her knees together?

                [–]Mr-Euffreducci 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Bailing out people who make stupid decisions (take single mothers for example) is going to come back and bite us in the ass because people don't learn from their mistakes if they are shielded from the consequences and or even worse incentivised to make these choices.

                [–]ChaddeusThunderloins -1 points0 points  (6 children)

                Society has given most of us the opportunity to get where we are today and allowed us the luxury of resources and time to devote ourselves to our own betterment, instead of starving or running for our lives from roving militias. Part of our duty as men is to help support and promote the society we live in. In this case, medical insurance geared towards the support and prosperity of our society long term is an acceptable cost as far as I'm concerned. If we all lived with the "fuck you, got mine" mentality then our civilization would collapse.

                [–]QQ_L2P 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                A man's only duty is to himself and his kin. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. This isn't some altruistic circlejerk, medical insurance is there to cover the costs for people who behave responsibly but get blind-sided by a random affliction. What it's not there for is for some dumb slut to get repeatedly knocked up and to blanket her from the consequences of her actions.

                With regards to healthcare, women are a greater burden and should keep their higher premium. What you're essentially suggesting is that everyone should be Beta Bux and suck it up. Access to basic medical treatment is one thing, but covering the cost of anything and everything that isn't physically serious or dangers to life is a joke. It's a black hole into where you throw money and get no return.

                [–]writeonbrother 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                You sound like a communist.

                [–]GuitarHero07 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                You assume that only government bureaucracies can provide these services to the needy. I strongly disagree. There is plenty of charitable care available to those who truly need it. Obamacare is just another step towards socialism in this country. We'll see how much you like it when you're paying 60-70% of your income in taxes. Right now, all this entitlement spending is being financed through deficit spending....$17 trillion and growing. At some point, we're going to have to pay the piper.

                [–]ChaddeusThunderloins 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Which do you think came first in any society, and which do you think was in response to the lack and uncertainty of the other? Individual charity cannot be relied upon.

                [–]IkilledJarJar 0 points1 point  (6 children)

                I disagree with your thought on the pre-existing conditions. By your argument, the individuals in society who have these conditions would not be able to obtain health insurance, and thus no hospital or physicians office would accept them as patients (most clinics want to see their patients have insurance or they will not accept them).

                With your rational, we would have a bunch of individuals with chronic illness unable to get healthcare simply because insurance industries are too big.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 14 points15 points  (4 children)

                But your missing the point. If people would carry health insurance from birth, or at least from a very young age, there wouldn't be any "pre existing" conditions, because the conditions would occur while the patient was covered. Brilliant! Because, see, the patient would have been contributing to the insurance pool while he was healthy so that he can reap benefit when he becomes sick.

                But people don't wanna buy health insurance when they're healthy. They wanna skip the "contribute to the pool when they're healthy" part, and come on board to "reap the benefit when they're sick" part. So when you need a $100,000 chemo treatment when your 60, it's far less of a financial sting to the company to pay that $100,000 if you've been paying premiums for the last 30 years, rather than just jumping on the rolls, pay one or two years of premium, and get the benefit of a $100,000 treatment.

                See what I'm trying to say? This is the logic behind pre-ex, but nobody wants to listen to logic when we're talking about "people". They tug at your heartstrings and appeal to emotion on the subject, so of course we ignore logic.

                [–]cooledcannon 5 points6 points  (3 children)

                Health insurance just seems lame in general.

                Why cant people just invest the money they would otherwise have spent on health insurance and take it out when needed?

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 14 points15 points  (2 children)

                Excellent question. And you can do exactly that. They're called "Health Savings Accounts", and they used to be great vehicles to hide large sums of cash from the IRS, and the funds could a) rollover year-over-year and b) could be withdrawn tax-free if you were using the funds to cover a qualified medical expense.

                I say "used to be" because Obama didn't like the idea of people hiding large sums of cash from the IRS for any reason. So today, though HSAs are still around, the fed government has imposed a drastically reduced cap on how much money you can stuff into an HSA.

                The account would have a VISA/MC attached to the savings account. Bandaids, OTC medications, ice packs, gym memberships, you could swipe the card for anything health-related. And it would generally have a high-deductible catastrophic plan attached to it to cover an unlikely medical tragedy.

                But see, people don't like HSAs because this consumerist society doesn't generally like "saving" anything.

                [–]thethirdcoast 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Didn't they also change HSAs so that it is no longer possible to roll them over year-to-year? Maybe that's just something weird in the plan my firm has imposed on me.

                [–]Husky__Assassin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                You are thinking of an fsa

                [–]GuitarHero07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                You underestimate how much free care there really is. Take it from a doctor who works in a hospital that serves many poor patients. There's Project Access (a program to get people access to free care), Medicaid, county health departments, free clinics and religious hospitals. Many doctors do a certain amount of charitable care.

                The problem with "free" healthcare is that it absolves people of responsibility for their own well-being. Most people who receive "free" healthcare from the government aren't at all grateful for it; they just see it as their entitlement. At least there is some level of guilt with accepting charity.

                Every day I see patients who smoke, drink excessively and do drugs. They come to the ER for free without having to pay any copay. They get admitted and treated all on other people's money. They don't give a damn about the expense to the's just a government benefit.

                Obviously there are some truly needy people out there. But there is enough charity out there to help them. Obamacare is just another step towards full blown socialism in this country.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                Your logic is shit here, sir.

                According to your depiction, women are using plenty of preventable care methods, using them drastically more than men, in fact. This apparently is costing lots of money.

                However, the men who don't go to the doctor until shit gets really bad is an almost perfect example of your pre-existing conditions guy.

                So what costs more money? Men who don't go to doctors until the treatment is outrageously expensive, or women who go regularly so that horrible shit doesn't come out of nowhere?

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                My logic is not shit here, sir.

                The reason women used to pay higher premiums than men is because they are actuarially more expensive to insure, period. This is due to myriad reasons. Women, for example, are hypochondriacs in higher numbers than men. They are more apt to run to a doctor for every little ache, pain, or runny nose they get. And every visit means that's one more doctor stuffing a $200 or $300 bill up her insurance company's ass. And it adds up.

                It's not the fact that they're "just using preventive care". If that were the case, the actuaries wouldn't be rating them higher.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I don't know if it's true about the hypochondria. I know that where I live it's not really the case. I live in a tough environment with not a lot of money, though, so it's probably not a good case study.

                [–]6footdeeponice -2 points-1 points  (20 children)

                As for your comment about people not getting health insurance until they're sick. That's why the health system should be single payer that everyone pays into from every paycheck.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 7 points8 points  (16 children)

                Why should I pay for your fucking bad health decisions? Fuck you.

                [–]6footdeeponice 1 point2 points  (6 children)

                You wouldn't, retard. Everyone would HAVE to pay into the system, that way no one has the choice to be a dickweed and not pay for insurance.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 2 points3 points  (5 children)

                Yes I would, retard. Because I earn a fucking income and I'd have to support sick, deadbeat fucks who use medical services but don't contribute to the system.

                [–]6footdeeponice -1 points0 points  (4 children)

                You've had? So in the past. With our current medical system.

                What are you not getting? EVERYONE would pay a tax on their paycheck, just like social security.

                That's why I'm saying it should change.

                You dense MF.

                Also, why should anyone listen to you? Your job relies on insurance being a thing. People like you are why we can't improve this shit.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 2 points3 points  (3 children)

                EVERYONE would pay a tax on their paycheck,

                That's my fucking point, asshat! There's 90 FUCKING MILLION PEOPLE in this country today who are NOT WORKING and are therefore NOT EARNING A PAYCHECK, therefore they would NOT BE CONTRIBUTING because they wouldn't have a paycheck to tax in the first place, but would still USE HEALTHCARE SERVICES.

                Grow the fuck up. Your idealist, lollipop, socialist delusions betray you.

                [–]6footdeeponice -1 points0 points  (2 children)

                Okay, let's circle back to those 7-8% of people who are unemployed.

                WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?

                If they don't have a job, it's not feasible for them to pay for health insurance.

                So in the current system, we have the unemployed who already are leaches on the medical system AND we have the dickweeds who have jobs, but think they're being smart by not getting health insurance until they need it.

                Yeah, each option sucks a little, but single payer health insurance sucks a little less.

                Also, if everyone had health insurance and could get preventative healthcare, it would cost WAY less for the whole country by not fixing people with preventable illnesses.

                Oh, and by cutting out the middlemen(which is you and the insurance companies) the country would save what? 15%-20% purely on the profits you crooks are allowed to make.

                Fuck you asshole, you know it's a racket and you just want to make yourself feel better because you're well off. YOU are the leach on society, not the people who just want fix a broken limb so they won't walk funny later in life.

                If my company didn't pay for half my insurance, I would just cancel it and put my payments into a bank account for when I needed them. Each year I'm spending 3k on health insurance, in a few years I would have enough to pay for any operation I might need. Not only that, I could put my money into bonds or CDs and make a few percent interest on my money.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                The 7% to 8% figure is a FARCE. That is the percentage of people who are unemployed and currently seeking work. It does not reflect the actual number of people not working. You need to educate yourself on the Labor Force Participation Rate, fuckwad.

                And if you think $3k/year is "enough to pay for any operation you might need", your a fucking delusional idiot. $3k/year, even after 30 years of working, is only $90,000, maybe a little more with interest. I've seen surgery invoices that easily DOUBLE that, you fucking douche.

                I'm done wasting intellectual capital on you. You're obviously either young, naïve about how the world works, or both.

                [–]6footdeeponice -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                Yeah, the procedures wouldn't cost that much if the insurance companies didn't allow the medical industry to get all fucking out of wack.

                You still didn't answer what you expect those people out of work to do.

                I guess it's easy to just say "Fuck everyone else but me" When you're such a insufferable asshole.

                Also, that is the high end of an operation, I' ve had some pretty complex and crazy surgeries and each one was around 10k with no insurance.

                In fact, my family didn't even have health insurance for the first 18 years of my life and we were able to pay for any and all surgeries we needed because doctors give you great deals when they know you're paying with cash and they won't have to deal with you asshole insurance companies.

                Did you ever stop to think doctors upcharge insurance companies so that when you guys turn around and tell them you'll only pay half the costs, they still get the money they should have?

                [–]dustyh55 -5 points-4 points  (8 children)

                So much is wrong with this it's frightening, the fact that you're trp endorsed really is insulting to trp.

                First of all, yes, reasonable civilized human beings have a responsibility of helping those in need when it comes to life and death. If some one is going to die and they can be saved, they should be saved. I know right now you want to hit me with a bunch of special cases, which brings me to your second display of ignorance and shameless generalization, blaming all conditions on the victims. Yes, there are those who make bad decisions, and those cases should be assessed accordingly since things are actually not black and white, but having people go broke simply because they needed treatment they would otherwise die (or lose quality of life) without, through no fault of their own, is embarrassing to an intelligent civilized culture, which is why the US and yourself think it's ok.

                I personally like trp, but I can see why it gets such a bad name.

                [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

                Human beings have a responsibility of helping those in need when it comes to life and death.

                Based on what moral principle?

                [–]6footdeeponice -1 points0 points  (4 children)

                I don't know, pick your religion and it probably says to help your fellow man.

                No religion? Okay, the economic impact of disease, removing otherwise healthy individuals from the work force, is damaging. It cost more than simply fixing them, and that fixing them costs more than just giving people preventative health care that would prevent them from getting very ill in the first place.

                How is it not common sense that a healthy workforce equals a more productive workforce?

                Oh, and life's not fair, so it makes sense to help the people life wasn't very fair towards. They're not less of a person because they were born in a bad area or into a poor family.

                Why don't you stop being such a self centered dick?

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                First you pointed to religion, then you pointed to economics, then you mentioned something about common sense, and finally you resorted to insults. All of that is irrelevant.

                You made a claim that human beings have a responsibility to help other human beings in need. I asked you to provide the moral foundation for that claim. It has become clear that you cannot provide one.

                [–]6footdeeponice -1 points0 points  (2 children)

                Haha, not really.

                You insulted me first.

                I didn't point each of those things out individually, I pointed them out to show that there is an overwhelming amount of reasons to help other people.

                You should help people because the economics show it's the right thing to do. I don't personally believe in religion, but if you do, your religion says it's the right thing to do as well.

                Please, answer this one question: For the people without a job, what do you expect them to do?

                [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                Single-payer isn't the perfect solution either. I'm a Canadian, and I've been through the system a number of times. Wait times are horrendous because welfare queens and hypochondriacs clog up the system. If you aren't literally dying, emergency wait rooms are usually 4-6 hours in any major city. This isn't even getting into the fact that I'm paying for people's shitty health decisions. If some idiot wants to smoke a pack a day and eat cheeseburgers all day every day, I'm paying for that.

                What this means is our taxes are royally jacked up. We spent $211 billion dollars last year (11% of our entire GDP). Shit is more expensive up here, mostly because of all these extra social systems.

                So as someone who makes a decent amount of money, I get inferior service at a fairly high cost. It's great for those running the poverty line, but I'd honestly fair much better in a privatized environment.

                [–]6footdeeponice 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.2%), than any other nation in 2011.

                So you're still doing better than the US.

                I'd also like to say that the wait times are a natural thing once everyone gets healthcare.

                Do you really think a valid solution to long wait times is to simply take healthcare away from poor people?

                Your taxes are jacked up to me makes me want to ask how much your health insurance cost? Do you pay for health insurance? Or do you just pay the tax?

                [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Yes, Americans pay more for the same healthcare, but the average Canadian end up paying more, total. The American system has more people paying larger amounts (think Pareto principle here), whereas a single-payer system averages that cost out across everyone.

                I'd also like to say that the wait times are a natural thing once everyone gets healthcare.

                Not when there's no added cost per visit. Without things like deductibles and copays people just go for whatever trivial concern they have. I'd wager you've never had to wait in a single-payer hospital waiting room. I'm not exaggerating the 5-6 hour wait times -- those are average.

                Do you really think a valid solution to long wait times is to simply take healthcare away from poor people?

                There's a cost-benefit to every social policy. Safety nets for those at the very bottom generally benefit society on the whole. But a lack of disincentive for abusing the system means people will do exactly that.

                I pay a large amount of money in the form of taxes. I would pay less if I got a high-quality premium under the American system.

                [–]squiremarcus 14 points15 points  (1 child)

                anyone want to stop discrimination in auto insurance costs please go right ahead.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                Auto insurance is still state regulated. Health insurance is now federally regulated. Unless and until the Feds commandeer auto insurance, you'll never see it. And the Feds won't do that because there's no campaign money to be made like there is in heath insurance.

                [–]Dark triad expert: - - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 11 points12 points  (2 children)

                I post this because I guess this is what society expects of us. To be the provider even when we elect to be alone.

                I would go as far to say that this is a kind of stealth bachelor tax. Even though it affects married men, you will now quite importantly have millions of single men subsidising woman's additional and extensive healthcare needs. Now a man who already looks after his family may not mind paying a little more. An older gentleman who has washed his hands of women however is going to be fucking pissed. Why should a bachelor be obliged to help fund woman's healthcare? He already pays income tax, sales tax and all the rest of it.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 13 points14 points  (1 child)

                It is absolutely a stealth bachelor tax. YOUR tax dollars now, under Obamacare, go to subsidize:

                1. Free OBGYN visits for any woman on an Obamacare plan
                2. Free birth control pills to any woman that wants them
                3. Free dental/health supplemental coverage for any woman's kids
                4. Cheap/copay levels for a spinster's psychiatric medications
                5. Subsidized/free pre-natal vitamins

                And probably a whole number of other benefits I can't think of right now. The "Affordable Care Act" (ObamaCare) is packed with fem-centric benefits. And YOUR tax dollars are being used to 1) BUY DOWN their monthly premiums as well as 2) BUY DOWN their deductibles and copays.

                Welcome to new America.

                [–]drallcom3 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                You're forgetting the most important point: Women live longer. They have less demanding jobs and better healthcare, so they live a good 5-10 years longer and have very likely been less productive. 5-10 years where the health costs are very high.

                [–]BetterToBeFeared 24 points25 points  (20 children)

                It doesn't really matter if the price to insure females goes down and as a result, the price to insure males goes up. Male-owned businesses and/or hard working males that are breadwinners are going to pay for the bulk of it anyways.

                Meanwhile, we're all paying for miss 40yr old post-wall's birth control pills, xanax/abilify, lyrica and 10+ doctor visits a year.

                [–]MisterParty 8 points9 points  (2 children)

                As someone who quit their job to pursue entrepreneurship, it's frustrating to not only pay more as a guy but also to pay more as a young person. My age demographic uses 1/6.5 of the healthcare of those 60-64 y/o or even less. So instead of paying $200/month (which I refuse to do), I would likely have a premium closer to $50/month pre-ACA.

                But yes you're right, in that most health insurance is provided through businesses. Male ownership/creation almost always.

                [–]the_number_2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                And the part that sucks is that this economy will turn around with innovation and new business, and new businesses are created by those who can most afford to take the risks (younger people without families to support).

                Essentially, the government is forcing me to give up more of my monthly income that otherwise would have gone to support my design business. They're penalizing the major demographic that will provide economic growth and job creation by hamstringing our income.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                Businesses under 50 employees are not required to provide group health insurance. Once the owners start figuring this out (I'm helping them do that), they're gonna stop dropping those cushy health plans. Because I will make the money selling their employees individual health plans under Obamacare. You're welcome.

                [–]17 Endorsed ContributorJP_Whoregan 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                I'm not trying to bragplain, but I can tell you that I am an agent for a major health insurance carrier in a large state (by population), and the carrier did NOT "cost average" men versus women. They simply brought men's premiums UP TO the level of women's premiums to comply with government equality laws under Obamacare.

                [–]Dorrog 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                Typical social-democracy style. Find some "social cause" to complain about, pass a regulation using it as excuse, and make the regulation help profit the companies more.

                [–]Funkychedder 26 points27 points  (14 children)

                Birth Control is REAL cheap compared to the cost of a welfare baby.

                [–]mazdababe92 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                Yes. Actually birth control is REAL cheap compared to babies in general. Even pregnancy - when you factor in prenatal care and leave of absence from work and whatnot - is far more expensive than birth control, regardless if your insurance covers 100% of the cost or if you pay out of pocket.

                [–]elevul 7 points8 points  (9 children)

                And male birth control is even cheaper, but I can bet that one won't be covered by insurance anytime soon...

                [–]1sailorJery 2 points3 points  (8 children)

                especially because it's not on the market in the US

                [–][deleted]  (7 children)


                  [–]1sailorJery 1 point2 points  (6 children)

                  Vasectomies are permanent methods of birth control, and 18 year olds are incredibly myopic and stupid. When people are talking birth control methods they're not usually talking permanent methods.

                  [–][deleted]  (5 children)


                    [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                    Yes they are reversible, but that's not their intended purpose. Did you just have the kids this year? Unless yes, you're not making sense.

                    [–][deleted]  (3 children)


                      [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                      Ok but you understand there are ethical reasons why they won't perform vasectomies on 18 year olds?

                      [–]RPDBF 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                      Doesn't mean I should have to pay for women's birthcontrol

                      [–]justskatedude 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                      No but on issues like this you need to consider the social good. I fully support paying for prevention care like birth control and condoms because then I won't have to pay for child support and other shit.

                      [–]vaker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                      No but on issues like this you need to consider the social good.

                      No. On issues like this you need to consider what incentives you're putting in place.

                      [–]AnotherLostCause 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                      This stuff is needed because fewer men are marrying and more importantly because many betas have thrown in their cards and opted to be unproductive. Expect more of this sort of wealth transfer in the future as sugar daddy gov scrambles to find ways to force men to subsidize women.

                      [–]NoFatChicks88 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                      What a pathetic world we live in

                      [–]writeonbrother 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                      Obamacare is a big tax on men, and especially young men. Tough to save up and get ahead with a big insurance premium you never asked for, for services you'll never use.

                      [–]JohnGalt316 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      also, healthcare enrollment was postponed until after the Nov 4 elections. that way the increase in premiums won't hurt the Democrats.

                      last year it started on Oct 1

                      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      As soon as I heard Obama was charging men more to help subsidize healthcare costs for women I started going to the doctor more. Between lifting and MMA I manage to injure myself all the time. Physical therapy, chiropractic, and sports massages every single week. Because fuck you I'm getting my money's worth.

                      [–]2asd1100 1 point2 points  (6 children)

                      Wait for it within 20 years western men will be paying out the ass for women, because patriarchy is bad and women vote for candidates that compensate for so much patriarchy. ANd the greatest part is that due to such a measure being overwhelmingly favorable for most women and all their orbiters, they effectively won democracy as they are a absolute majority.

                      [–]vaker 2 points3 points  (5 children)

                      You're assuming this shitshow will continue to go on for 20 more years. That's highly optimistic.

                      [–]2asd1100 3 points4 points  (4 children)

                      I guarantee it: look at north koreea, people will put up with ridiculous amounts of harships if that is what they are told is good for them. And there you have only a goverment, here you have all the women and beta boys around you. If women are happy nobody gives a fuck, if women aren't happy, society will try to make them happy. It's not our show, since the invention of tribes it stoped being our show.

                      [–]Hoodwink 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                      The problem with comparisons with North Korea is that it's at the bottom of technology with people starving to death as a regular occurrence. It survives just because China wants it to survive as a tactically useful ally.

                      The U.S. I would argue is at or near the top in terms of wealth and this is the only way to sustain the current 'shitshow'. I think the U.S. will survive and continue as long as it serves internationalist interests and tries to keep Chinese consumption low.

                      [–]2asd1100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      I am arguing it as a social real live experiment, politics aside. People will put up with a lot if they think it's normal.

                      I personally thing the US will devolve into a national socialist state, it is the only way to maintain protectionism both for the the people(to maintain power) and the corporations(to maintain wealth) but lets keep politics out of it.

                      Society is built to so people do not lack needs. For the most part, being an alpha is hard, being a beta is sad but easy. You go the safe route and even if you fail you get a pity parade. Being a happy woman is hard, your nature is very trusting but the only guys that are worthy of your trust and will not fuck you over are precisely the guys that fuck you over. So as long as society provides minimal validation to betas and tries to protect women from fucking up, a large majority of the population will be "satisfied".

                      On a side note you know what people say about politicians that they lie and that they don't do stuff for the people. That is bullshit, people elect politicians that lie, because a truthfull politician will say NO, will say well you got to pay for that or that is a waste of time and resources. And no one will vote for a politicians that breaks it's electorates idealism(partially because that idealism is the only thing that makes them give 2 shits about politics in the first place). Whether it's libertarians or socialists lying get you ahead because people need their egos stroked.

                      [–]2mbillion 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      first off america kicks ass and we are nowhere even close to being treated like the poor people of north korea.

                      second, it is our show, men still run the world. Say it to yourself. Believe it, you are the master of your destiny and many men who are not all too different than yourself wield influence and control over almost everything society offers

                      [–]2asd1100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      every country kicks ass in the view of the native, it's called nationalism

                      It wasn't a comparaison, it was a case study for how benign people are when they are told suffering is part of the program.

                      No they don't, the do it for their wifes. they are just happy they get some extra pussy on the side. The second man became a social animal women had more leverage than him and he became just a provider rather than a essential partner for her survival.

                      Once the industrial revolution came and most jobs could be done by women, the value of a man declined to that of a ox. Good for lifting things but not really essential.

                      And now, with feminism women evolve past the last part of a man they needed his attention. Crushing the myth of manliness and elevating masculine women to the state of heros.

                      And all of this is not random. We are designed at a fundamental level to give women more, and not attack them when they step out of line and take to much.

                      [–]g1344304 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      The pricier car insurance for males really pisses me off but coming from a country with single payer health care, I don't mind spreading the cost of everyone's cover. It might not be popular on here but I love the fact that anyone can visit their doctor or hospital without a single thought about what it will cost - wether that is for cancer or birth control. There will always be some leechers but I don't mind being fairly taxed for that. It's great that every citizen (or even tourist) has access to the same medicine and treatment regardless of background.

                      [–]BluepillProfessor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Plus women go to the doctor for every fucking thing imaginable. They waste so many resources it is incredible.

                      [–]Menadian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      In Denmark it is way more expensive to be insured as a young male, because male car-drivers are the most dangerous in the public picture. Though nobody takes that gender-inequallity up...

                      [–]Skiffbug 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      I don't quite agree that both cases are equivalent. In the first, the difference is immutable (without surgery, at least), while in the other it's a behavioral thing.

                      I think it makes sense because it is in the same way that the price you are paying is also cross-subsidizing older people, people with pre-existing conditions, etc... it's the only way to make health insurance universal.

                      I know a lot of people here think that this sort of thing "for the greater good" is BP, but it applies to much more than gender.

                      [–]-Tyler_Durden- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      When a republic grants women the vote it will eventually become a welfare state.

                      [–]pl231 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      They're just going to keep regulating it where companies have to take on policies that are so financially negative that they can't produce enough profit from other ones to balance out the losses, and guess what happens then? Close the doors and see ya!

                      [–]2mbillion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      If you thought the 2008 housing bubble was something wait until the american health care bubble pops - and its really not that far from happening

                      [–]kovu159 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      My province made it illegal to discriminate on insurance across the board. My health insurance went up but my car insurance went way down.

                      [–]Misogyny_Hero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Wow. WTF. OK, so when is men's car insurance gonna drop to as low as womens because of equality?

                      [–]Vengefullyspiteful 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                      I always wonder why United States can't afford a free health care system, just like the us here in Nothern Europe?

                      [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      It would involve raising taxes by a very significant amount, which is just about the most unpopular thing you can do in any country. You need to transition slowly enough that people don't notice the pain.

                      [–]pcswag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      You should visit states like Michigan should you come visit, the cost of keeping all the ham planets in orbit is insane.

                      [–]toysjoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      So now do men pay the same as women for car insurance? That would be nice because they pay a lot less.

                      [–]clls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      I would say both are bad.

                      women who get pregnant usually don't get pregnant alone, but with a man, and having her insured is beneficial for the woman, the man, the baby and society as a whole (less needy and expensive children with birth defects or brain damage).

                      men should not have to pay more for car insurance, and women should not have to pay more for health insurance. most of us aren't the ones that pay less and receive more, but we all have the same chance to be someone who receives more and we should be happy when that does not happen to us. there should be no distinctions based on gender (or race, SES, etc).

                      I would like to add (while it will probably get me lots of downvotes) that this is also something that feminism stands for (equality, for both men and women). making sure that car insurance costs the same for everyone is a feminist act, just like making sure that men who are raped or are victims of domestic violence get help and are taken seriously. while I get what you mean with 'feminazi', I would like to point out that feminism is about equality and not about favoring one gender. the typical 'feminazi' people usually talk about here is most likely not a supporter of feminism.

                      [–]Wargame4life 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      In the EU its the same and its just, i.e applicable everywhere, if you cannot discriminate on sex for health insurance ( am in uk don't need it anyway) you cant discriminate on car insurance.

                      You are a getting a major shitty deal, where its only one way, what the fuck is happening america.

                      [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (15 children)

                      Even if you choose to be alone, you still derive a benefit from a functioning society. I've yet to encounter a logically consistent argument for why a member of society shouldn't be forced to contribute to the society that we enjoy.

                      [–]williamwilliam2 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                      The mis-balance in healthcare costs then subsidizes bad health behavior and choices. It's not a societal plus to have women experience less financial impact when becoming obese, overdoing self-mutilations, or not maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

                      [–]thrway1312 2 points3 points  (9 children)

                      No taxation without representation; the fed uses tax dollars very leniently in military spending (et cetera) and yet if I have a child, I wouldn't fucking dare to enroll him in public school.

                      Just because the society meets its continuously dropping status quo (see also: disappearing middle class) does not mean the society is working to benefit me and those like me.

                      [–]Bakkie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      You are asking him to understand actuarial principles. Long shot there.

                      [–]2mbillion 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      a member of a society should not be forced to do anything we are free men who willfully enter the social contract of a society and government for our collective benefits. We agree to it. When it becomes something we are forced into it is no longer the societal contract we entered into.

                      There are thousands of well written pages on the nature of society and what is the obligation of the member of society. Nearly no societal philosophies positively espouse forcing people to do something

                      [–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      a member of a society should not be forced to do anything

                      by being a member of a society you are receiving benefit from it, not paying into it is tantamount to theft. So forcing people not to steal isn't an encroachment of freedom. Not contributing to a society you are deriving direct or indirect benefits from is an encroachment on the freedoms of others. Thousands of well written pages on the nature of society indicate this.

                      [–]RebootedMale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      My healthcare premiums (single male, no dependents) actually just dropped this year for the first time ever. My tea partying boss is about having an aneurysm about it because his premiums went up (our company says "women dependents have had higher costs in our company so we are raising premiums for those of you with families").

                      I'm not disagreeing with the OP, but insurance premiums are a clusterfuck and vary greatly from situation to situation. Guess I got lucky. Thanks, Obama! I'll spend the savings on hookers!

                      [–]BluebirdJingle -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

                      It's not really that absurd. Insurance is about mitigating risk by averaging over a group of people. Everyone who doesn't get sick automatically pays for those that do. This just broadens the spectrum of who is averaged. Is it fair? Of course not. But there are a thousand other things about how health insurance premiums are calculated, including the demographic I'm lumped into based on statistics, that gender discrimination isn't very high on the list of things I'm going to support.

                      [–]RamenAvenger -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                      Get out of here with your rational consideration of the issue, we've already got the pitchforks ready!

                      [–]chairmobile -1 points0 points  (2 children)

                      Yeah, and statistics indicating women are safer drivers completely ignore the proportion of drivers who are women, so it's still bullshit, sorry.

                      [–]DasWood -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

                      The reason why insurance for men is cheaper is because men face sudden death and overall much shorter lifespans. Thus requiring less health insurance and end of life costs. Is it shitty? Yup but who cares. This is MRA shit.