I would say that he has a rather limited and uncreative way of looking at the situation.

Is stupid a "pre-existing condition?"

From the letters to the editor in today's Oregonian:

Don't Cover Birth Control

Susan Nielsen, in her column of March 4, complains about the fact that she has paid for other people's medicine all her life, but nobody paid for her birth control pills. She supports House Bill 2700 which would require insurance companies that cover prescription drugs to cover birth control.

Birth control and most other medications are part of the cost of living, not a one-time huge expense that should be insured against. Insuring against the cost of living just raises the cost of living, as the insurance companies have to have their cut: they are not about to lose money.

The problem is not that Nielsen's birth control hasn't been paid for by insurance all these years, but that she has forced to pay for other people's medicine.

Once an expense is expected, it is uninsurable. That is what pre-existing conditions are all about in health insurance. Fertility is a pre-existing condition.

Rycke Brown, Grants Pass

There's almost too much stupid here to tackle at once. I feel a bit like a hungry gator that's come upon a wounded hippo.

I guess I could point out to Mr. Brown that impotence is expected once men reach a certain age yet insurance companies insure the cost of medicine to treat that condition just the same.

Or I could point out that there's all sorts of medical reasons women take birth control pills that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy.

While we're on the subject of pregnancy it doesn't appear that Mr. Brown has done the cost-benefit math on insurance costs. Hint: is it more expensive to the insurer to provide birth control pills or pre and post natal care? Not to mention the cost of the delivery itself? Remember that insurance companies aren't about to lose their cut.

As Atrios is fond of saying- The stupid! It burns!

(above image/ quote chosen especially for Hypatia)