Why Is Maternity Care Such an Issue for Obamacare Opponents?

[TomCADem]

We frequently hear variations of this argument. Why do the rich have to subsidize the poor? Why the young have to expand the risk pool for the elderly? Why do the healthy have to subsidize the sick? However, Republicans asking why men or the elderly have to pay for some of the costs of maternity care through the inclusion of such costs in determining insurance rates really does just take the cake for audacity in assuming that maternity care is strictly a young woman's issue, and that once a man does the deed, he should be off the hook.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/why-is-maternity-care-such-an-issue-for-obamacare-opponents/281396/

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act have settled on a new injustice built into the system: The law mandates that all plans cover women having babies.

Representative Renee Ellmers got the ball rolling at an October 30 House hearing where she pointedly questioned Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: "As far as the essential health benefits, correct me if I'm wrong, do men not have to buy maternity coverage?" The North Carolina Republican hammered Sebelius from there, ending with, "To the best of your knowledge has a man ever delivered a baby?" Sebelius tried to defend covering maternity care, but it was too late. A "single male, age 32, does not need maternity coverage," Ellmers said.

Plenty of commentators have since argued it's unfair to make insurers cover maternity care. Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers objected in mid-November: "The idea that they think that 50-year-olds should have maternity care is very concerning to me." Writing in The New York Times, Lori Gottlieb (an Atlantic contributing editor) complained that her new individual-market policy would be more expensive and include "maternity coverage (handy for a 46-year-old)"—after she'd intentionally dumped "maternity benefits so that I didn’t have to pay for everyone else’s pregnancies." Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, a former Mitt Romney adviser, asserted: "Having children is more a choice than a random act of nature. People who drive a new Porsche pay more for car insurance than those who drive an old Chevy .... Why isn't having children viewed in the same way?"

On Thursday, Nicole Hopkins, writing in the Wall Street Journal, revived the theme, complaining of a "letter from my mother's insurer [that] promised that the more expensive plan 'conforms with the new health care law'—by covering maternity needs, newborn wellness and pediatric dental care. My mother asked: 'Do I need maternity care at 52?'"

[SheilaT]

1. This is simply a particular example of the

nasty "rugged individualism" that is so prized in our culture. It is each man for himself. In non sexist language, each person for themself. Except that far too many people take the first version -- each man -- entirely too literally.

For reasons I personally do not completely understand, this country seems founded on the idea that each individual must behave as a totally separate entity, with no obligation to anyone else, and with no responsibility to anyone else. The idea that there might be some sort of common good has been totally lost.

And so, a health care plan that all participate in that includes maternity coverage becomes anathema. Never mind that for some years now many health care plans have happily paid for Viagra, which is something men only consume, but not anything else related to the female reproductive system.

I do not have language strong enough to say what I think of this. Listen up guys. If you can no longer get it up, then live with that. Meanwhile, almost all women between the ages of 13 and 55 (exact ages will vary) are subject to becoming pregnant. They deserve coverage for that condition.

And I'm 65. It's been rather a long time since I've needed maternity coverage. So what? I have never, and will never need Viagra. Nor will I ever have prostate cancer. But I'm still a member of the human race. Get over your sense of individual entitlement.

[RC]

5. The real solution for health insurance problems, inequity, etc., is...

Single Payer, Universal Health Care. Everyone above a predetermined income level, pays a percentage of there income for health care. Similar to Social Security or Medicare. Age, gender, sexual orientation, race and and any other differences, would not matter. Only income level. The well-to-do would pay more. The not so-well-to-do would pay less, or noting at all. Those below a certain income level would pay nothing. All would have access to the same health care. It is our Right.

We need to work to get rid of the "Your Money, or Your Life" middleman, health insurance companies.

We are all human. We should all have equal Rights, which means among other things, access to proper health care. Especially life saving health care.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Doctor_J]

6. Yep.

Our majorities and WH is 2009-2010 screwed this up badly by "agreeing" to a bizarre complicated scheme full loopholes and sticking points. As for the complaints, it's just like every other issue for the last 20 years - rove comes up with an idea, and every right winger in the country harps on it, from harvard professors to the WSJ to every Limpballs wannabe at every radio station in the country. When we're ready to take the country back from the cons (including the DINOs), there will be lots of explosions at the home bases of the propaganda apparatus.

[CTyankee]

2. Oh, really? Well, when I was working my employer would negotiate with health insurance companies

on a plan for employees, each year. I paid into a plan that included maternity coverage, even tho I worked 15 years past menopause. Nobody was bitching about that. It was just the way it was. I didn't get a "menopause exception" to my share of the health insurance premium I had deducted from my paycheck twice a month.

Why aren't these people reminded of this fact?

[fasttense]

3. Bunch of winny babies

My health insurance from the military is great, so when my husband worked for several businesses he declined their insurance (it was pretty crappy). Yet he got NO PAY INCREASE for not using their health insurance and in 2 cases he still had to pay into their health care insurance.

There are all sorts of inequities built into insurance, any type of insurance. Our house insurance went up and the agent said it was because of all the wind and storm damage to other people's homes they had to pay out last year (not for our home though). Insurance is just a very unfair system of spreading the risk.

[SummerSnow]

4. Interesting....

Romney's advisor would say that having children is more of a choice.Hmm sounds like pro choice to me. Those conservative politicans and their voters are phoney. They're pro choice .Its all about money to them.