Like the surcharge for using tobacco this clown is proposing a surcharge for fooling around without protection.
How did I miss this jewel the first time around? I guess I just wasn't paying attention.
From the article:
The Congressman stated:
Someone who smokes, drinks, participates in bad conduct and behavior, unprotected sex, maybe bad things happen to them, maybe they should pay higher premiums. That is a radical thought, isn’t it?Of course there will be some government agency that will decide what behavior is bad enough to warrant higher premiums. I suspect that attending Tea Parties, hunting, owning firearms, and reading this blog would rate higher premiums. Why do I think that Barney Frank's behavior wouldn't rate a higher premium?