Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC just won that title. According to politicalticker.com:
To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever given birth to a baby? As the hearing moved toward its end, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-North Carolina, asked Secretary Sebelius that question, aiming to highlight that some men may be forced to buy maternity coverage as part of an insurance package under Obamacare. Sebelius responded that some men do need maternity coverage for their spouse and family, who could be covered under their policy. Ellmers insisted this is an example of why health care costs are going up, insurance coverage that may not be necessary for everyone.
Ellmers also asked why a 31 year old single man would need maternity coverage, Well, isn’t that an interesting question. What if Mr. 31-year-old impregnated a woman and he married her, and picked her up on his policy. Just out of curiosity, haven’t men always paid for maternity coverage? Haven’t I always paid for prostate issues? That is just such a hokey thing to get in a knot over. I have never seen a policy where you can itemize what you want on your plan. Add this, take this off, just isn’t open to most of us.
The worst thing about Ellmers was that she smiled behind her coffee cup after she delivered what she thought was the knock-out punch to Sebelius. I found her behavior to be rude and juvenile. She made an ass of herself and yet she was too smug to realize that it was she who looked like a 13 year old.
“But we were ridiculed for pointing out that the math said that is what would happen.”
No … Republicans are being ridiculed for the immaturity level – no demonstrated ability to govern in the real world, just endless sloganeering and talk about building “bridges to the past”.
Take it to Washington. See how your Republican pals will accept you and your thoughts as being equal to them and theirs. They’re the party of the people – hard working working class and they’re the only ones who have you in mind. Call Ellmers. Triple dog dare you.
If she’s smart she or a staffer should listen. If they are about listening rather than pulverizing.
@Rick Bentley
I can’t help if you’re still believing the lies. I know that math is hard for your side.
Of course, you are still ridiculing anyone that you disagree with. That appears to be the standard operating procedure for you.
@Lyssa
Nope. Insurance is one of the most regulated products in America.
So, what’s your definition?
@Moon-howler
Where did I set myself and those that think like me as a “majority?”
It is often implied.
@Kelly_3406
I think that there was a proposal. It was table in the Senate.
@Rick Bentley
The ACA is the law of the land…. how about we repeal it since the majority of Americans have polled consistently that they don’t want it?
Doing something for the sake of doing something is worse than nothing. But we already know that you’re a progressive apologist willing to take anything that Obama and the Democrats sends your way….
I don’t think the majority of Americans don’t want it. It all depends on how the questions are framed. Many Americans like many different components.
Probably the same thing was said about Medicare when it first went into effect.
You obviously haven’t listened to Rick. He is very difficult to pigeonhole.
The ACA will end up killing people.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446
Apparently this is our main point of departure. After serving active duty in the military, I never underestimate the capacity of government bureaucracy to make a bad situation worse. And the military is a well-functioning part of the government, especially compared to the HHS. I would be willing to bet that not only will the ACA fail to reduce healthcare costs, it will result in higher costs.
One big reason is that the ACA depends on young people to purchase health insurance in greater numbers and at higher cost than pre-Obamacare. To be consistent with the Supreme Court decision, the tax for not getting health insurance must be kept relatively small and non-punitive by Congress. Since the ACA guarantees that anyone can get coverage, young people can choose to pay the modest tax each year and delay getting expensive health insurance until it is really needed. This means that costs of the ACA could spiral if the sick and/or old people are the predominant groups that enroll.
Why on earth are you so opposed to young people getting health coverage?
They should be told to get it and be done with it. If they had a job that offered it, theirs would be the same price everyone else’s was.
Old people are sort of self contained in Medicare already. They expect Medicare folks to get sick occasionally. It goes along with the territory.
Young folks will be sorry if they break a limb playing touch football drunk or wrap themselves around a tree once night, especially if they are as sloppy with their auto insurance as some are with their health care.
@Moon-howler
He’s not saying that he’s opposed to young people getting health coverage. Nowhere is that said.
He’s pointing out that young, healthy people, paying higher premiums, are the “bank” to provide the money for the lower premiums elsewhere. But they have no reason to get that coverage. Just pay the “tax.”
“Be told to get it.”
By whom? Isn’t this a free country?
Who gave you the idea this is a free country? Free from what? Obviously, that is a cliché.
Yes, there is all sorts of heel digging regarding young people, like its OK not to have coverage. Once again, its implied.
85% of all Americans have coverage through their employer. With many jobs, your age doesn’t matter. What used to matter is when you went COBRA, you got the age penalty socked to you. I think that became verboten a few years back though. it should have. Once my husband’s company turned everyone into contractors to save money. That meant you picked up your own insurance. His would have been 900 a month, and this was 25 years ago. I couldn’t pick him and the kids up on mine because it wasn’t open season. We found a catastrophic policy.
I would stop making up excuses for the younger people. Instead of making up excuses for them, they need to be encouraged to get coverage or to look for a job that has it. Tell them to go work for Starbucks. You can get on their plan working part time. Lots of people do that just for the insurance coverage. 20 hours a week will do it for you. Schultz wants his part timers to have health coverage also.
Starbucks also allows coverage for domestic partnerships–same sex or opposite sex. No questions asked. however, you are taxed on the amount of the insurance. I can’t remember if the state or the feds do the taxing…maybe both.
I will ask though if anyone is interested.
@Moon-howler
I’ve read what he has posted. I can only go by what I read.
Fire the woman. She ran the whole ACA ship aground and didn’t even bother (allegedly) to let the admiral know there was danger ahead. If she did that to something which was vitally important to any of you personally, you would have security escort her to the door with her personal stuff in a cardboard box.
@Wolverine
I don’t want her fired. That removes her as the face of the ACA. AND, once removed, will just fade away. Firing her is too easy on her. Make her fix it.
Just checked out my employer sponsored plan and yes this year and last year there was no difference in the maternity coverage for woman and men – yes, my plan has covered maternity for both sexes.
For people under 26 – they can and probably should remain on their parents plan (thanks Obamacare). For those older than 26 getting a new policy is often times cheaper with the subsidy available (Obamacare) and is probably a better plan (Obamacare) and will provide additional services such as well visits and better coverage as part of the plan.
In order to make the plans more affordable the risk is being spread out across a larger pool which is the reason why things like maternity are also on the plan for a male – have everyone pay for the system – leveling the plans so that males and females pay the same is also a feature of the plan to make it more affordable and for the young – one day they will get older with more ailments and conditions and they will not be priced out of plans.
Right here on this blog there are those that are not insurable and they have kids that are not insurable – yet they want to remain in this limbo spot of not being able to get insurance. I do not get it. I have a son with Asthma – he is outgrowing it – but it will always be a reason for an insurance company to deny him coverage and once you are denied coverage it lasts your entire life.
Is Obamacare perfect – no so let’s fix it by moving forward not moving backward and all the the R’s want to do is to go backward – they do not even like their own Heritage Foundation plan that they pushed for so many years.
Bravo, Pat.
I think its time for everyone to stop bitching that its the law and work towards getting the kinks out of the program. That seems like the most sensible thing to do.
“I would be willing to bet that not only will the ACA fail to reduce healthcare costs, it will result in higher costs.”
Well … we’re all in on the bet. If the thing isn’t an entrance into cost reduction, it’ll be a huge bust.
Thinking back to what has been said, I believe the Prez said it probably wont lower costs immediately but it will after the plan gets under way. Good enough for me.
Or…we can do nothing and sit around and whine about it.
@Moon-howler
OR we can repeal it.
The idea that Republicans refuse to support individual responsibility is unfathomable to me.
Here is the definition of insurance:
: protection, defense, safeguard, security, hedge, precaution, provision, surety;
Did I PLAN on having a kidney stone at age 26 and being rushed to the hospital? Nope
Did I PLAN on being diagnosed with MS 8 months later? Nope
As a responsible adult, once I had the kidney stone, I asked my employer if I could pay to get on the group health plan. He kindly said yes and I can tell you, that was the luckiest kidney stone one person could have had. Without that stone, I can’t even imagine what my health would be like today and the debt I would have incurred.
The ACA has issues, duh. No one is denying that, but if Republicans would start behaving like mature legislatures, offer solutions to help people get affordable care, we could start resolving these issues together.
Our insurance hasn’t changed at all, I always opted for the Point of Service Plan. We pay 100 dollars more in our annual premium and our deductibles have risen somewhat along with copays, but THAT was happening every year anyway!
Cost of insurance nationwide is projected to rise about 6% for 2014, which is in line with projections from previous years – http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/usa-health-premiums-idUSL1N0I621O20131017 and http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/18/pf/healthcare-costs/
@Elena
You are confusing a government mandate to buy a product with individual responsibility.
Individual responsibility would mean that if you don’t have coverage and can’t pay for it….that’s your problem. Since we don’t do that, society proves that it values something else other than individual responsibility…. then to fix THAT problem, we are implementing a system that causes people to LOSE insurance that they liked and in many cases, penalizes those that DID use individual responsibility.
@Cargosquid Where does that “individual responsibility” kick in for my autistic niece, when Mom and Dad pass away or become disabled themselves, and she’s all grown up? She can’t even say the word “bootstraps”, and she probably never will. What about her? I simply can’t reconcile this free-market idea when it comes to basic health. Why can’t I get something for my tax money that directly benefits people in the most fundamental way?
Sure, make people work for their welfare check, give out food and not cash when people are hungry–whatever. But if people are sick, they’re not going to do much of anything else to help themselves. I’m just not buying into this scary socialism argument when it comes to health, unless you want to try to convince me that my current insurer is only ever interested in my optimal health and well-being, and not on its bottom line.
@Emma
And how is that “individual responsibility?”
I was discussing Elena’s use of the term.
Programs for those that need it are a completely different issue. Forcing people to buy insurance that they don’t want or need is wrong.
What you are asking for is health care for a disabled person. That is not “insurance.” Thus, this one size fits all program is not a good fit. A program to help people like her CAN BE DEVELOPED, tailored to specific needs. I don’t mind tax money going to help the needy and disabled.
It sounds to me like we need to fix things not throw out things.
Speaking of forcing things….your party has not one problem forcing people to have children they can’t afford or having medical procedures like ultra sounds at their own expense, even when not medically necessary.
I have no problem with people who don’t want to buy insurance. They also need to sign a waiver that if they don’t have the money to cover their bills then they are to receive no treatment\ for illness or accident. If they chose to die, its on them.
@Cargosquid
Programs for those that need it are a completely different issue. Forcing people to buy insurance that they don’t want or need is wrong.
And forcing the rest of us who have decent insurance continually to pay more for those with inadequate policies or no policy is wrong as well.
Standing ovation. Cheer cheer!
@Cargosquid
Forcing people to buy insurance that they don’t want or need is wrong.
and how is that any different from me being forced to buy home owners insurance? I do not want it or need it – but the company at risk (mortgager) requires it. If a hospital were allowed to require insurance to get in the door people would feel a greater need to have insurance. The only reason why one could possibly feel that they do not need insurance is that in the back of their mind they will get care when they need it. And the risk that those people take is put on me and my expense. It is time for the free riders to have to participate not continue to take advantage of the rest of us.
Totally agree, Pat.
They are free riders if they get their ass in a sling by getting sick or injured.
Rest of the world has government intervention, covers everyone, at 10% of GDP.
We don’t, have less coverage, and pay 16% of GDP.
Argument over. Time to change the way we do things.
In that rest of the world (England, for example), even visitors can get healthcare if they need it. In many countries, after childbirth, women don’t have to trudge back to work in just a few weeks, after they’ve exhausted all of their paid leave benefits. Families take off entire months out of the year to vacation, while the average American worker gets 2 weeks of leave, if at all. People enjoy extensive and inexpensive public transportation options, and often ride on an honor system with no idiotic “addfare” machinery to tie things up in their subway stations. Lots of healthy, skinny people ride bicycles just about everywhere, and many of the cities are bike-friendly. Compare that to our DC Metro system, which is expensive and virtually useless for many commuters.
Excellent infrastructure, AND they have healthcare. Hardly looks like the fall of Rome to me.
My mother ended up in the ER for a broken wrist on one of her globe trots – either in Iceland or Canada – and didn’t have to pay a dime. She kept shoving her insurance and credit cards at them and they kept refusing them.
Watching the way middle-class Republicans are acting is wild. Putting all their energy into defending the current health care system, where they pay for the uninsured’s medical coverage, and sit and hope they don’t get sick or lose coverage – one cancer diagnosis away from bankruptcy. Just afraid of change so badly, paralyzed with fear. Afraid of “socialism”; afraid of “Obama”. Insane.
They are so committed to and invested in the idea of $90 aspirins, $1000 MRIs, and lack of power to change the syetem … they are a dysfunctional bunch. The kind of imbeciles that would insist upon a round of tax cuts and then 13 years later be running around saying hey, somebody else’s ideas have caused a budget deficit.