Skip to comments.Sebelius: 'Men Often Do Need Maternity Care'
Posted on 10/30/2013 10:48:15 AM PDT by Rusty0604
Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage.
Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not
Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you.
Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes.
Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I loathe the fact that health insurance these days is being used to pay for usless non emergency CRAP like routine checkups and getting moles frozen off, which increaes the cost of routine maintencne as people tend to abuse subsidiezed crap.
If you had to plunk down 50 to 100 bucks everytime you had to go see the doc for a sniffle or cough more people would instead spend 10 bucks for a dozen cans of chicken soup instead of wasting doctor’s time.
It is like expecting your car insurance to cover the damned cost of oil changes and car washes...
And even if his girlfriend ended-up pregnant, she in all likelihood wouldn’t be covered under the policy.
And the “pre-existing condition coverage” is like buying a fire-insurance policy AFTER your house has burned-down.
A typical reply of a misogynist male chauvinist pig. He might be responsible for getting her pregnant because every male is a potential rapist. < / sarcasm >
And the pre-existing condition coverage is like buying a fire-insurance policy AFTER your house has burned-down.
Or bitching about how people on the hill don’t have to buy flood insurance on their house because you were dumb enough to buy a house built next to the van down by the river...
I got "paternity leave" when my kids were born in the late 80's / early 90's. They typically gave 3 days off with pay on a moment's notice. I saw them give other men more when babies or Mom's had complications in birth. Shoot, they gave me some comp days and didn't make me count vacation when my granddaughter was born and had to go in NICU for 10 days ("Go be with your family" was all that was said).
No Government mandates - just a good loyalty building investment from a company that had to compete in the free market for my continuing services. It worked - I worked there for 25 years and never so much as interviewed for another company...unusual for a high tech industry. Many, many 10+ year employees. And we paid it back by working extra (all salaried people) covering for others when their time came.
That’s right, because she would be covered under her policy. But remember, that is our “war against women” so we have to quit talking like this.
We may need it after all the sc**wings we have been receiving from the Obama Administration.
I don’t see any reason for maternity care to cost so much. But I guess part of it is we have to share the cost of all the illegals that get free care for their anchor babies.
Insurance under group employer plans usually do cover maternity (if it is a reasonable plan). That’s ok because the group shares the risk and makes it a little less expensive.
But for an individual man to have to pay for maternity is not reasonable.
So if we’re talking about policies for single people, is Ellmers saying that there should be a men’s insurance plan and a woman’s ensurance plan? Men’s plan wouldn’t cover breast cancer or pregnancy, women’s plan wouldn’t cover prostate cancer or vasectomies? Something like that? Would the government then have to force insurance companies to develop a cafeteria-style system of policies?
Um, no. It is the same as being forced to buy homeowner and auto insurance if you don't own a home or a car.
You are confusing some crazy idea in your head with cost shifting, which is not at all synonymous with "keeping the cost down." It only means those of us who will never use the services are being forced to pay for unnecessary coverage.
I guess my point was I didn’t need to be insured for this. Good people can do good things are there own without government mandate.
Exactly. I just stored up and then took a week’s vacation for 3 births. Storing up some days for #4 right now.
She used the wrong example since men do help make babies. A better example would be octogenarians required by law to pay for “coverage” for prenatal care. Why would they ever need that?
The bottom line here is that Democratcare is a huge tax increase, wealth transfer and assault on the middle class. Marxists always hated the middle class the most. Nothing new here.
Maybe she’s right, BECAUSE MEN ARE DEFINITELY F*CKED BY OBAMACARE!
Will this man deliver a baby or did he just eat one?
“What about gays?”
Are not the costs for the men plans twice the cost for the womens plans?
Why is that?
“Get In My Belly.”
But actually, he has been losing weight, I suspect by election time he will have done a Mike Huckabee-like transformation.
Let me get this right...
Sebelius said “The individual policies cover families.” ?
I mean, really, WTF?
And if we are getting rid of all these gender differences in insurance, why not auto insurance? Men pay WAY more until age 25.
The cancer treatment costs are probably higher. Malpractice insurance might be another matter, and that cost is going to get passed on to the patients.
Dear LORD forgive me... I hate these people and I know that is wrong. Amen.
I can’t wait to hear the lawyers scream when they nationalize/socialize medical malpractice insurance.
The plan was that women shouldn’t be charged more than men, even though they usually require more care.
But I don’t think it is fair for an individual man to be forced to pay for maternity care for himself when there is no risk that he will get pregnant, do you? If he got a women pregnant, she wouldn’t be covered under his individual plan anyway.
Why does everyone have to pay for drug abuse treatment even though an individual never does drugs?
nope’it’s a fine example. the insurance is for female contraceptives, pregnancy exams, fetal ultrasounds, delivery costs, etc. no man ever uses those personally. his wife does.
same thing about women being charged for coverage for prostate exams, erectile dysfunction, testicular cancer, etc.
If a man with an individual (not family) policy gets a woman pregnant, she would not be covered under his individual policy. She would be covered under her policy.
So everyone has to pay for those that can’t get married and plan for the possibility of a child?
I'm still a little unclear. Is Ellmers saying that under Obamacare men will pay the same premium as woman for the same coverage? Or will it the premium be based on odds, i.e. yes a man's policy will cover pregnancy but he probably won't need it so he pays a little less?
That’s right. In a group policy there is risk sharing; but we are talking about individual policies here.
“California Governor Signs Law Mandating Gay Infertility Insurance Coverage”
Amend the ACA to require that the Secretary of HHS enroll in Obamacare. The Secretary must have skin in the game.
You can get family coverage under the individual market (as opposed to group policies in employer offered insurance). But if you are a single man covering yourself, then no.
I am saying that today (before the Obamacare policies take over) there are gender differences in pricing to account for what each gender may need from the total list of services provided.
It costs real money for doctors to deliver items such as cell phones, flashlights, assorted vegetables and a sundry of other items. /S, /S
And with health insurance we are all forced to pay for drug abuse, so why not make all drivers pay for some driver’s DUIs?
I meant “Ellmers is saying THEY are trying to justify...”
“Has a man ever delivered a baby?”
Oh boy. They better put a stretcher in that room. If they start asking questions that require Democrats to think and tell the truth, those Democrat heads are going to start exploding like overripe pumpkins.
But if a man has a wife they would get insurance covering BOTH of them!
A single man gets a policy covering only himself!
yeah but they charge him for the female stuff he can’t use, regardless of a wife - who would be increasing the premium, remember so she’s not ‘free’.
it’s all messed up. on purpose.