USA Today reports that Kathleen Sebelius has issued her post-election rules on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and it is good for you if you are a young practicing homosexual whose behavior has given you a very serious, very costly disease such as AIDS – Your pre-existing condition must be covered by insurance companies!
Stop insurers, starting in January, from charging more for insurance or refusing service to people who have pre-existing or chronic health conditions
On the other hand, if you merely exist as an old person , you can be charged three times the rate as a young person, presumably to cover the cost of treating the consequences of the young person’s behavior.
Insurers may not charge seniors more than three times the amount they charge young people.
Kathleen tells us that it may have been age discrimination to charge an old person five times as much as a young person, but charging them three times as much is just …..good business…… or something. Of course there used to be concepts of risk, and risky business, and risky behavior, but….oh, nevermind.
See? That’s what equal protection under the law means. It means some people are more equally protected under the law. But of course it’s not all behaviors you engage in or how sick you are or how many genders you are, you can’t be charged higher premiums for those things:
Prohibit insurers from using claims history, health status, gender and occupation to increase premiums.
Nope, you can’t be charged three times higher premiums for those things. You can’t be charged more if you submit a claim once a week for gonhorrea treatment. You can only be charged three times higher premiums if you are old.
But since you can’t be discriminated against because of your homosexual behavior, you might think that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees that behavior is not a basis for discrimination. Ho ho ho, Not So, Kemosabe! –
Allow insurers to charge smokers more, as well as adjust premiums based on family size and geography.
See, it’s just some behaviors that are frowned upon equally, while other behaviors are equally not frowned upon. Surely you can understand the equalness of that reasoning. If you are puzzled as to the discrimination based on family size remember that “affordable” means its cheaper to insure a family consisting of two homosexuals ( unless of course that whole STD thing rears its pretty little head) than a family consisting of a father and a mother and four children. The geography thing? Well, um, that’s like, um, if you live in a red state you are a higher risk due to your geographical location because of various, um factors. Or something.
If we were…..constitutional lawyers…we might perhaps be able to detect some facets of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, at least those facets so graciously explained to us by Kathleen Sebelius today, that seem to contravene the provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that have to do with equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, we are not constitutional lawyers; not even constitutional scholars. Anyway, the constitutional lawyers are all tied up litigating …..equality.…..in places like…..California . So………………..