Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sebelius: 'Men Often Do Need Maternity Care'
Breitbart ^ | 10/30/2013 | John Nolte

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 ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: baitandswitch; basicbiology; cultureofcorruption; healthcare; junkscience; lyingtocongress; manturity; marxism; obamacare; obamascandals; pregnantman; pseudoscience; redistribution; sebelius; sexeducation; sillybus; waronerror; waronwomen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
What about gays? Oh wait, California has a plan to call gay partners' infertility as a preexisting condition and therefore everyone has to pay for their insurance for turkeybaster babies.
1 posted on 10/30/2013 10:48:15 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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...


2 posted on 10/30/2013 10:51:34 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

And even if his girlfriend ended-up pregnant, she in all likelihood wouldn’t be covered under the policy.


3 posted on 10/30/2013 10:52:11 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

And the “pre-existing condition coverage” is like buying a fire-insurance policy AFTER your house has burned-down.


4 posted on 10/30/2013 10:53:01 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

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 >

5 posted on 10/30/2013 10:54:35 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

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...


6 posted on 10/30/2013 10:55:55 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
The only reason men are forced to purchase maternity care is cost. Maternity care is normally the most expensive part of any health insurance program. Having men buy maternity care insures that a pool of people will pay for a benefit they will never need - thus keeping the cost down.
7 posted on 10/30/2013 10:56:15 AM PDT by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

8 posted on 10/30/2013 10:57:04 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

9 posted on 10/30/2013 10:58:50 AM PDT by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
Capitalism solved this years ago.

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.

10 posted on 10/30/2013 10:59:15 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

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.


11 posted on 10/30/2013 10:59:49 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

We may need it after all the sc**wings we have been receiving from the Obama Administration.


12 posted on 10/30/2013 11:01:09 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

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.


13 posted on 10/30/2013 11:01:54 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

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.


14 posted on 10/30/2013 11:04:47 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

15 posted on 10/30/2013 11:05:26 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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?


16 posted on 10/30/2013 11:05:53 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
a pool of people will pay for a benefit they will never need - thus keeping the cost down.

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.

17 posted on 10/30/2013 11:05:55 AM PDT by NautiNurse (Obama sends U.S. Marines to pick up his dog & basketballs. Benghazi? Nope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c


18 posted on 10/30/2013 11:06:31 AM PDT by FreedomForce (Living in the Age of American Soft Despotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


19 posted on 10/30/2013 11:06:56 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
Maternity care is normally the most expensive part of any health insurance program.
More expensive than cancer treatments? I think not.
20 posted on 10/30/2013 11:07:55 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Exactly. I just stored up and then took a week’s vacation for 3 births. Storing up some days for #4 right now.


21 posted on 10/30/2013 11:08:49 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


22 posted on 10/30/2013 11:09:11 AM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Maybe she’s right, BECAUSE MEN ARE DEFINITELY F*CKED BY OBAMACARE!


23 posted on 10/30/2013 11:10:05 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (If Americans were as concerned for their country as Egyptians are, Obama would be ousted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604
To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Will this man deliver a baby or did he just eat one?

24 posted on 10/30/2013 11:10:42 AM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
You would have to remind me of that, wouldn't you? But knowing Arnold, it is entirely possible that he knocked himself up . . . don't you think?
25 posted on 10/30/2013 11:11:01 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

“What about gays?”

OB/PROC ?


26 posted on 10/30/2013 11:12:06 AM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Are not the costs for the men plans twice the cost for the womens plans?

Why is that?


27 posted on 10/30/2013 11:12:18 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

“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.


28 posted on 10/30/2013 11:12:23 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Let me get this right...

Sebelius said “The individual policies cover families.” ?

WTF?

I mean, really, WTF?


29 posted on 10/30/2013 11:13:17 AM PDT by polymuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Today, we don't have gender-specific plans, but do have gender-specific pricing. So, men and women pay different amounts based on which subset of the total of offered services they are likely to use. But both are covered, which means that if a man gets breast cancer (rare, but not non-existent), he is covered. But the pricing structure takes into account how rare it is for a man to get it. On the flip side, the pricing takes into account that women will not ever get prostate or testicular cancer.

And if we are getting rid of all these gender differences in insurance, why not auto insurance? Men pay WAY more until age 25.

30 posted on 10/30/2013 11:14:18 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
More expensive than cancer treatments? I think not.

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.

31 posted on 10/30/2013 11:15:05 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Dear LORD forgive me... I hate these people and I know that is wrong. Amen.


32 posted on 10/30/2013 11:15:37 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

I can’t wait to hear the lawyers scream when they nationalize/socialize medical malpractice insurance.


33 posted on 10/30/2013 11:15:48 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

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?


34 posted on 10/30/2013 11:18:37 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

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.


35 posted on 10/30/2013 11:19:21 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

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?


36 posted on 10/30/2013 11:21:25 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
Today, we don't have gender-specific plans, but do have gender-specific pricing. So, men and women pay different amounts based on which subset of the total of offered services they are likely to use. But both are covered, which means that if a man gets breast cancer (rare, but not non-existent), he is covered. But the pricing structure takes into account how rare it is for a man to get it. On the flip side, the pricing takes into account that women will not ever get prostate or testicular cancer.

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?

37 posted on 10/30/2013 11:22:07 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NautiNurse

That’s right. In a group policy there is risk sharing; but we are talking about individual policies here.


38 posted on 10/30/2013 11:23:20 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

“California Governor Signs Law Mandating ‘Gay Infertility’ Insurance Coverage”

http://christiannews.net/2013/10/23/california-governor-signs-law-mandating-gay-infertility-insurance-coverage/


39 posted on 10/30/2013 11:24:47 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Amend the ACA to require that the Secretary of HHS enroll in Obamacare. The Secretary must have skin in the game.


40 posted on 10/30/2013 11:25:15 AM PDT by Mashood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The cancer treatment costs are probably higher.
Probably? Since the year 2000, I've known at least 7-8 people with lymphoma or other cancers including both my in-laws. I can't begin to tell you how much it cost them.
In fact, one neighbor is still undergoing treatment right now and so far this year's cost is well over $25K and she's paid at least $5K out of pocket.
In the last two years, I've had two grandchildren born and their cost was no where near $25K.
41 posted on 10/30/2013 11:26:10 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: polymuser

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.


42 posted on 10/30/2013 11:28:01 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Ellmers is trying to justify policies going up in cost in order for man to be covered for pregnancies. Actually, they are admitting that they are redistributing wealth by making people pay into a pool for services they will never need, like single men on individual policies that must cover pregnancy.

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.

43 posted on 10/30/2013 11:28:33 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

It costs real money for doctors to deliver items such as cell phones, flashlights, assorted vegetables and a sundry of other items. /S, /S


44 posted on 10/30/2013 11:28:46 AM PDT by GOYAKLA (Waiting for the Golden Screw to be removed from Obama's navel and his a$$ falls off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

That’s true.
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?


45 posted on 10/30/2013 11:29:41 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan; DoodleDawg

I meant “Ellmers is saying THEY are trying to justify...”


46 posted on 10/30/2013 11:29:51 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

“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.


47 posted on 10/30/2013 11:30:18 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

But if a man has a wife they would get insurance covering BOTH of them!
A single man gets a policy covering only himself!


48 posted on 10/30/2013 11:31:27 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604; Revolting cat!; GeronL; Slings and Arrows; JoeProBono; Daffynition
Beer baby.


49 posted on 10/30/2013 11:36:14 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


50 posted on 10/30/2013 11:36:40 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson