Saturday, November 7, 2009

Pete Sessions compares being female to being a smoker

Despite repeated campaign promises to always be in the District on weekends, Pete Sessions is working overtime today to kill health care reform.

His latest outburst on the House floor drew "a burst of chatter" in the room, kind of like it does in bi-partisan settings here at home when Sessions gets stuck for an answer and says the first thing that comes to mind, usually a tangent about "socialism" or "Nancy Pelosi."

In his latest gaffe, Pete Sessions defended the insurance industry's practice of charging higher rates to women; the proposed health care bill would make it illegal for insurers to charge different rates based solely on gender. From Courthouse News Service:
In promoting the House health bill, New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone made reference to discrimination by insurance companies, citing their reluctance to insure people with preexisting conditions and differences in costs based on gender. "But that's not against the law," Texas Republican Pete Sessions said.

Pallone replied, "No, but we would make it against the law. Why do you have a problem with that?" he asked. "Why should a woman pay more than a man?"

"Well, we're all different," Sessions explained. "Why should a smoker pay more," he said before getting interrupted by a burst of chatter throughout the room.
So, in Pete's mind, being a woman is just like being a smoker--being female just a destructive habit some people pick up that the rest of us shouldn't pay for.


Lisa said...

Yeah, how come women get charged more? Men are more likely to do dangerous stuff, like driving fast and doing "jackass" stunts, and they're more susceptible to heart disease, so how come we pay more?

Gender equality in health insurance rates should be something we all agree on.

John Peterson said...


I would guess that the big reason women pay more because women have babies. Women pay more for health insurance because they cost more. Unless the numbers aren't supported by the math, it's not discrimination. It's probability, statistics, and math. It wouldn't be fair to charge men more for less service. Just like it wouldn't be right to charge young people more to pay more for old people.

I know it's not even, but I pay more for car insurance and life insurance. The numbers work in women's favor there.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to pay more for less service. That's not fair to men.


christine said...


So maybe we should stop having children to lower health-care costs. If so, please refrain from procreation.

These arguments are ridiculous. The true problem is he equated being a woman to being a smoker. Does that not strike you as completely asinine? Yes, the money balances out in certain things, fine, whatever... but doesn't that bother the HELL out of you that one of our political leaders, a man with power, thinks the entirety of the female gender are responsible for their own womanness?

That kills me. How can that not bother you? I'm assuming you have a mother, maybe a sister, maybe a daughter. They're irresponsible human beings for having a vagina? No.

Pete Sessions is bullshit.


Sessions Wat said...

Thanks for dropping by, John and Christine.

Until all women get pregnant by themselves, the Sessions Watch team sees no problem with men living up to their financial responsibility in covering their share of pregnancy costs, including the cost of insurance. And, since having babies benefits all of society, the cost of childbirth should be shared by everyone.

By the way, a man's increased risk of heart disease, prostate trouble, and the male tendency to do "jackass" stunts more than make up the difference in medical costs incurred by women who have children, in the opinion of the Sessions Watch team! We agree with Christine that Pete Sessions is full of bs.

Sessions Watch said...

And another thing--unlike bad habit, gender is not something one decides, like choosing to smoke.

Pete Sessions is an idiot, which is why we started this blog in the first place.

Nancy said...

"Jackass" lol! lisa's comment reminded me of SW's blog post from August where Sessions is in that panel discussion with EB Johnson and the only example he can think of for "personal responsibility and cutting down on having to use an ambulence is when guys get drunk on a friday night! Then EBJ goes on to talk about wellness and prevention and how people put off care until it's too late and they end up having to call and ambulence. David Smith should read that post because we want a Congressman who thinks things through instead of jsut saying whatever pops into his head first.