Make vasectomies illegal and remove prostate exam insurance coverage

Posted on November 20, 2009 by Uppity Woman

Text: Copyright, Uppity Woman 2009. All Rights Reserved.

sperm

Don't kill me!

Vasectomies kill potential children.

Every sperm on this earth is a potential baby maker and anybody who gets a vasectomy clearly hates babies and is not doing what he is meant to do: populate, populate, populate!

If God didn’t want your sperm to make babies, he wouldn’t have given you your tool or invented Viagra!  That’s why, even as we speak, health insurers cover Viagra but not birth control. It’s only fair, right?

With vasectomies, all those innocent sperms never ever get the opportunity to make it to where they are supposed to go: inside the woman you are dumping and leaving to fend for herself once she tells you she is pregnant. Instead, they die, lonely and dejected, never having the opportunity to do what they were meant to do.

Vasectomies are also immoral. They stop reproduction. And while we realize that some of you really, really should not reproduce yourselves (we’ve dated some of you), might I suggest abstinence instead?

Happy, fulfilled spermatozoa, sans vasectomy

Perhaps we can send you wayward fellows to some faith-based program to explain to you that yourr little tools were put there so that they might make babies, lots of babies. Lots and lots of babies. If you aren’t going to use it for its intended purpose then you should practice abstinence instead of killing off all those potential children. Perhaps we could picket your clinics as you walk by to get the snip-snip done.

Vasectomies also promote indiscriminate, immoral behavior. This means you are going to burn in hell if you have a vasectomy.

This must stop.

Vasectomy must be made illegal now. We recognize that it’s perfectly legal at the moment, but we don’t like it and are going to harass and harangue you until this stops. Period.

While we are on the subject of removing unnecessary procedures from health care coverage, we should remove prostate examinations from the health care bill after age 75 as well.  Since women don’t need to have mammograms covered at age 75 because they are old, it stands to reason that men don’t need their prostates covered either. Obviously this is not all that important. Obviously, 75 is a perfectly respectable age at which to take what’s dealt to you and get the hell off the planet, just like women will be expected to do. If you insist on sticking around with your nasty old carbon footprint, your exam will “Not be reimbursable”. I will however agree that palliative care for you should be covered, since there will be plenty of women in palliative care now that mammograms won’t be covered between ages 40-49 and after age 75.  Oh and by no means do you want to have a prostate evaluation before age 50. If you have any symptoms just stop worrying! I mean, women don’t even need to examine their breasts any longer. If they do and find a lump then they cost money! So just hold on with that drip and Start and Stop stuff guys, we will take care of you soon as you turn 50, mmmmmmkay? It will be much cheaper than saving your asses.

Now don’t be upset guys. Don’t be all emotional about this. Calm down. You’ll feel better about this later. Really, it’s no big deal. Stop with the hysterics. Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill.  Be rational. We want to be fair with you, you know? Please don’t be interfering with this wonderful health care reform over something silly. Don’t be selfish!

I know. I know. I’m Such. A. Bitch!

**Cute pic of sperm depicts Psyches Muse song entitled Spermatozoa. Care to hear the song? It’s cute!

Filed under: Uncategorized

« »

36 Responses

  1. finely, on November 20, 2009 at 6:21 AM said:

    Oh my gosh, the hits just keep coming. I’m surprised they didn’t indicate how decreased cancer screening could ultimately lead to decreased greenhouse gas emissions….

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575891,00.html

    “Report: Push Back Age of Cervical Cancer Tests

    CHICAGO — Women in the United States should start cervical cancer screening at age 21 and most do not need an annual Pap smear, according to new guidelines issued Friday that aim to reduce the risk of unnecessary treatment.”

  2. PamelaofthePoconos, on November 20, 2009 at 6:31 AM said:

    Bravo, UW, leveling the playing field. Women must learn to think of themselves as totally equivalent in value to men, even though we know we are better. : )

    Have you seen the Viagra/Cialis tv ads that implore men having erections which last over 4 hours – four hours – should seek medical help. Wonder if that will be covered.

    Interesting that what several days ago was known as the US Preventive Services Task Force is now in the NYTimes being referred to as a federal Preventive Services Task Force and was created was created to be insulated from politics.

    www dot nytimes.com/2009/11/20/health/20prevent.html
    However, there is mention of Stimulus money on a web page associated with them.

    Finally, I’m seeing something very disturbing: that Senate will debate only 10 hours this Satuday and then have the vote. Basis of claim seems to be a WSJ article which is asking for me to agree to a free trial subscription before I can read the whole article. Smells fishy to me, but who knows what the crazy Democrats will do in their hour of greatest desperation?

  3. FreedomFairy, on November 20, 2009 at 6:41 AM said:

    Finely – I just sent the whole NYT article to UW.

    I cannot believe these assholes.

    Sharia Law has arrived.

    Thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her asshat boss.

  4. PamelaofthePoconos, on November 20, 2009 at 6:48 AM said:

    Link for WSJ article about senate vote:
    online dot wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091119-717535.html

  5. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 7:26 AM said:

    I posted the cervical story in the Onion thread about 2 AM this morning. I was so pissed I couldn’t sleep.

  6. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 7:28 AM said:

    I wonder how all those girlz at Ms Magazine are doing. Maybe they should do another I LOVE MY OPPRESSOR cover. How ironic. Young Obama GIrls were his biggest fans and he is fucking them royally.

  7. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 7:30 AM said:

    I guess they need to reduce that 52%

  8. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 7:40 AM said:

    You know, I hate to say this, but it’s something to think about. Did it every occur to you all that somebody is trying to do health care reform in? I mean first the mammogram thing and then the pap smear thing. They say it’s a coincidence but it’s a pretty BIG one that this second “recommendation” drops out of the sky within days of Obama’s board pulling the mammogram stunt. What I am saying here is it is possible Obama knew about the mammogram thing and was going to screw women, but after all the backlash, why would he have anything to do with another assault on already TRULY pissed women who were known to be his supporters.

    Then too, this is just the setup to make Democrats appear to be our “saviors” again by making sure those recommendatons fail. Like the’ve done with abortion for years. ………..You know, scare the shit out of women and then “fix it” for them. Create the scare, fix the scare.

    Just some food for thought.

  9. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 7:47 AM said:

    There’s a pattern here folks, and it’s not the pattern you think. Just consider what I am saying. THe Democratic Party has been pulling the same shit on women for decades.
    1. Create a scare/problem
    2. Fan the scare flames
    3 “Fix” the problem
    4. Declare yourselves a savior of women
    5. Keep them in line and voting for us because we fixed things “for” them.

  10. PamelaofthePoconos, on November 20, 2009 at 7:47 AM said:

    Regarding my earlier reference to WSJ that Senate would attempt to rush the whole thing through tomorrow, CSPAN states:
    Sen. Majority Ldr. Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that today & Saturday the Senate will begin debate on health care legislation. Tomorrow night a cloture vote is expected on the motion to proceed to the bill. Sixty votes are needed and if cloture passes then debate on the bill will occur after the Thanksgiving recess.

    www dot cspan.org/

  11. deadenders, on November 20, 2009 at 8:08 AM said:

    I guess men will just have to call Lorena and get it taken care of in a back alley.

    Slightly off topic.

    UW l have been trying to find the total cost that the insurance industry adds to medical coverage.
    In other words how much money paid to insurance company’s goes to running the insurance company’s themselves and not to the health care providers?

    Insurance company’s don’t produce anything or help anyone they providing a service, just taking your money and gambling you wont get sick.

  12. It’s fun to read old blog posts « Donna Darko, on November 20, 2009 at 8:11 AM said:

    [...] Uppity Woman: Make vasectomies illegal and remove prostate exam insurance coverage [...]

  13. finely, on November 20, 2009 at 8:41 AM said:

    Uppity, you might be right… I’ve heard it said (over at the Confluence) that failure is a feature, not a bug…

    Get those rationing guidelines out before the cloture vote! (And then blame failure on the Repugs to increase the the Dim’s Congressional approval rating… hehh, it certainly can’t go down much more.)

  14. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 8:44 AM said:

    No back alleys for YOU DE. You get a permission slip!

    I do recall some very pointed pieces on how HUGE insurance company overhead is. You are absolutely correct, they administer and gamble for their stockholders. When they see they might be losing a gamble, they find a loophole and kill someone off. It’s as simple as that. They contribute NOTHING to the providers except grief and shit. Doctors have to fight with them all the time to save their patients.

  15. deadenders, on November 20, 2009 at 8:59 AM said:

    All I can find it that their profits margin is 2.2% which means nothing just that their smart. Lower profit=lower taxes. Just pay your exects more and you get less profit.
    2.2 percent could be billions since they wont say of what? I know it’s totally wrong but if we were to eliminate the insurance company’s and pay the health providers directly with the $1 trillion that Nancy and Harry are planing could you then eliminate all the BS and just get what you need when you need it no questions asked?

  16. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 9:01 AM said:

    No no no DE! If congress paid providers directly, their stock portfolios would tank!

  17. ParkSlopeVoter, on November 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM said:

    Uppity,

    I’m sorry to say, but I’m feeling a little uncomfortable coming here…

    -MS

  18. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 11:28 AM said:

    Aw I’m sorry Park. I was having a bit of fun. You get a permiission slip too!

    I know you know that we women are being obliterated Park. I think we are entitled to blow off a little steam before our deaths.

  19. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM said:

    Imagine if they were doing this to men, that’s the point.

    We are harassed over a legal procedure. Now they also want to take away life saving procedures.

  20. ParkSlopeVoter, on November 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM said:

    Uppity,

    You KNOW I’m on your side! (Thanks for the permission slip – LOL!). Oh, and I did get the point…

    -MS

  21. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 11:54 AM said:

    Go get a burger, Park! I’m not done! lol.

    Just bear with me, this is serious shit. I have to show the absurdity of it all.

  22. AnneE, on November 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM said:

    Yeah, Uppity, being the suspicious soul that I am–it would not suprise me if they are coming out with these “findings” because they want healthcare to crash and burn and then they can scapegoat women. You know, we didn’t cave in and let them roll over us and be happy with 6th century healthcare like they have in Afghanistan because we are selfish.

  23. mcnorman, on November 20, 2009 at 3:03 PM said:

    DE you should look at how self insured trust pay. That should get you a rough estimate of what they charge.

  24. mcnorman, on November 20, 2009 at 3:05 PM said:

    ParkSlopeVoter, you are loved. What would make you think otherwise?

  25. emmag, on November 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM said:

    “I know. I know. I’m Such. A. Bitch!”

    A glorious, wise Bitch!!!! How can we get this out there? It needs to go VIRAL ASAP!

  26. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM said:

    hi emag. sorry for delay on your comment appearing. New commenters always land in moderation and I wasn’t around to catch your comment right away. You’re all set now though if you want to comment.

    LOL on me going viral. You are welcome to post my link anywhere you would like. Just please do not copy and paste. I have had original writings go viral in emails without my link, until finally a zillion others took credit for it. So let your readers know my writing is copyrighted. Ok? Thanks!

  27. Somebody, on November 20, 2009 at 4:47 PM said:

    DE as to the profit margins for insurance companies there was an article a while back over on NQ showing the posted earnings, the “administrative” costs and such. Some of the companies then push profits back to parent companies.

    Anyway if I remember correctly the breakdown was 29% of the money taken in from premiums vanished. The rest was used for paying claims and most of their payroll. The report on NQ showed SEC filings and a lot of other stuff, might have been Larry Doyle’s article but somehow I think it was Pat Racimora’s article.

    I think they all want to report their earnings in the 2% range because 2% or there abouts is the figure thrown around for the administrative cost of Medicare.

  28. Peg, on November 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM said:

    Your piece is an absolute scream! No one ever gets all moral about vasectomies. (Does the Catholic Church speak out against them?)

    Thanks, UW; you made my day.

  29. Uppity Woman, on November 20, 2009 at 5:44 PM said:

    You’re welcome Peg. And you just made mine.

  30. Fredster, on November 21, 2009 at 2:04 AM said:

    DE: google “administrative costs” for the ins. companies. That should be the # you want. I’m not sure if that is all encompassing for claims payments (and denials!), plus salary etc, but should give you a good idea.

    Miz UW!! I have been very supportive of the women on these 2 issues so let me have my prostate exam when needed (not that I’m looking forward to it!)

    And don’t worry about self exams by us guys for testicular problems. We’re pretty good at that whether anyone recommends it or not, as you may well know! You know…like when we wear the real baggy pants…out in public…the ones with the hole cut into the pocket… ;-)

  31. Fredster, on November 21, 2009 at 2:05 AM said:

    Oh and vasectomies are no biggie for me as you may know. :lol:

  32. Barbara, on November 21, 2009 at 2:18 AM said:

    I know. I know. I’m Such. A. Bitch!

    And this is why we love you, UW! Wonderful post… sending it to any HealthCare Reform morons?

  33. Uppity Woman, on November 21, 2009 at 7:58 AM said:

    LOL Fredster! I’m dying here!

  34. Uppity Woman, on November 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM said:

    Barbara why would I send it to them? They already have their plans.

  35. Fredster, on November 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM said:

    Uppity Woman, on November 21st, 2009 at 7:58 AM Said:

    LOL Fredster! I’m dying here!

    Don’t know how many times I heard my mom say to my dad:
    “Can you NOT do that in public!!!!” :lol:

  36. Uppity Woman, on November 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM said:

    LOL please adjust your set.

Comments are closed.