responding to the times

Something, that if this blog doesn't lie down and die soon, that I'll be doing often is responding to the Times.

The NY times is probably the best paper in the world, as far as presentation of news go, I always trust its national section, but its editorial bored, and some of its coverage is just too fucking bleeding heart for my taste. Since my letters to the editor go unpublished and unanswered, I feel that in this blog, I can correct some of the idiotic emotionalism that they display from time to time, no pun intended.

Spisificly, I'm talking about this article is an example of a socialistic practice that is morally defensable, but economicly dangerous.
The article claims that insurers apply higher insurance rates to women then they do to men, because women go to the doctors more, and have children. Fair enough. These companies exist to make money, not to coddle American's. If you want lower rates, get your overies removed, then, you won't be able to have kids, and then, of course, you should be charged a lower rate.

I'm serious. It doesn't matter if it looks to be unfair on the surface. This is different from equal pay for equal work, job oprotunity, and discrimination. Women cost insurers more money as a gender, so they should be charged more as a gender.