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.
Rep. Elmers may have some explaining to do of her own. Not on health care (what doofus thinks that most folks can cherry pick their insurance policies) but on gun control. I’m waiting for the gotcha if she’s ever asked about securing her guns. Let’s hear the excuses on her part. In the meantime she merely appeared as the typical rude pol trying to make points with her followers by talking over Sebelius’s answers.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/rifle-stolen-renee-ellmers/
I’ll say Rep Ellmers has some ‘splaining to do. What moron leaves a gun propped up on a gun safe in an unlocked garage.
Personal responsibility seems to be…absent!
Of course, we would never be able to trace the gun, would we, even if it were used in a crime.
She was extremely rude and childish. The smiling behind the coffee cup was just smackable. Let’s see how she smiles when she is forever reminded of her irresponsibility with her weapons. Everyone should write her and enclose of picture of themselves smiling behind their coffee cups as they admonish her about personal responsibility with tools that are designed to kill things.
So you’re actually going to make an argument out of this? She was simply pointing out the obvious fact that men don’t need maternity coverage when purchasing an individual insurance policy, yet it is required under Obamacare. Somehow you’re going to try and rationalize the medical need for the unnecessary requirement instead of just admitting it was done for Obamacare financial support reasons?
I am making the argument that she made a total ass out of herself and doesn’t understand jack about how most insurance works.
Why are you arguing with me? That is how policies worked before ACA.
Let me give you an example. Someone I worked with had a daughter who had a baby. The primary policy holder OR THEIR SPOUSE has maternity coverage. The children did not. Small print. That was a 15,000 out of pocket expense for the daughter. The daughter had been away at school and the employee didn’t know that the daughter was pregnant. From now on, something like that simply won’t be allowed. maternity coverage will be part of all policies.
I paid for a million years to have prostate disease taken care of. You have coverage to have your appendix removed, even if you lost that body part at age 10.
Its simply an absurd argument and shows lack of understanding how insurance works.
Before the so-called Affordable Care Act, people could and did cherry-pick coverage in insurance policies. It was only after the ACA came along that 10 “essential” coverages were mandated. It is now a proven fact that Obama and his administration lied that about people retaining plans that they liked, because the failure to include any one of these items forced cancellation of many policies. And in 2014, employer-provided group policies will be subject to cancellation — how many previously covered families will be forced to the exchanges?
The doofuses (doofii?) in the White House and HHS now require single men and married couples with grown kids to pay for maternity coverage. This is an unprecedented power grab by the federal government. Mental health coverage, however, may actually turn out to be essential for treatment of depression when low-information Obama supporters figure out that they have been had.
Those married couples with grown kids might have a daughter on that policy also. hmmmmm….men don’t stay single forever, as a rule. (well, some do)
Most people didn’t have designer insurance coverage where you can cherry pick your own.
Any cherry picking was often done by the employer…like whether to include mental health coverage or gastric by pass or even cosmetic surgery. But it wasn’t done by gender.
I really have decided that this is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Its being made by people who have never talked to a human resource person in their lives.
Let’s face it, most individuals have company plans. Very few people have high end personal plans paid for out of their own pocket.
I wonder what Rep Elmers thinks about deadbeat dads. She also publicly stated she would not forgo her paycheck during the federal shutdown and retracted that the next day.
Regarding gun control her website mentions this …. “Although she believes that gun owners must be responsible for the use and care of their guns, she does not want to see law-abiding gun owners penalized for the actions of criminals”. Her AK-15 was left leaning against her gun case in an unsecured garage and stolen as
Then again, congress runs every two years. Not much time to govern if you’re constantly running for election
Somehow, in the past, I think congress members have just done a better job than this current run of …..fill in the blank.
She really represents the worst of the worst, it appears. She sure doesn’t see herself as someone who should have to assume personal responsibility.
Has it occurred to her that if her gun were in locked cabinet in a locked garage she might not have been burglarized? Didn’t think so. Its always someone else’s fault.
When I was young, I had the choice of adding maternity care to a policy but over the years it’s been standard for any policy my husband and I had – as in no choice. It’s really a basic need for more than half the people of child rearing age. I’ve never seen a policy where prostate exams or treatment were excluded. Some of this stuff is basic. We’ve never had children and some family plans made a break for only two adults and some didn’t. So I’ve subsidized children over most of my lifetime – mainly through my real estate tax for their schools. I’ve also been lucky enough that, except for a couple kidney stones, I haven’t had to make use of much of my insurance but a car accident or older age might change that. You see, that’s an advantage that we old geezers have – we know that everyone ages and develops problems. Some of you younger posters think you’ll be able to escape the inevitable.
@Second Alamo
She wasn’t pointing out an obvious fact (unless she’s dimwitted) as much as she’s grandstanding. Was she the least bit interested in the answers?
I think the point of the post is that this woman’s job is to help figure this out. Not be Michele Makin or Rachael Maddow wannabe’s.
She’s not doing her job.
In defense of Rachel Maddow–she would never be that rude.
…and while the line of questioning may have had some merit – it was lost by the delivery. If that’s her problem solving methodology…I’m not paying her to do things that way.
The woman’s tag line about how people want a beer instead of Chardonnay is really stupid. But she keeps repeating it. So many GOP representatives appear to be functionally retarded, or at least act as if they are.
The intellectual vacuity of the GOP is scary. I guess they really are content to keep paying a trillion dollars more for health care than the rest of the developed world (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS), and inevitably sliding into debt and non-competitiveness. It seems obvious to me that there’s NO WAY out of debt that doesn’t involve containing health care costs. But they don’t seem to care. They walk around in the Tea Party regalia quoting Dr. Suess books and electing idiots like this woman as their mouthpiece. They appear, to me, to be scumbags who want America to fail. At any rate, they’ve shown their inability to govern loud and clear, over and over.
The basic paradigm the two parties have fallen into is that the GOP makes a mess out of the country and then the democrats clean it up, and then we rinse and repeat.
@Censored bybvbl
You are not correct. Somebody had the choice as to whether a given plan had a particular coverage or not. For your individual plan, you correctly noted that there was choice. Companies have choice for the plans that they provide to employees. There was nothing that required them to provide a particular coverage except the competition to hire and retain good people. You always had the choice to not take their coverage, but it was in your financial interest to do so.
Companies of any size sure have a one size fits all. Some companies allow you to buy HMO style policies or high deductibles to save money or go with the PPO.
The pregnancy discussion is getting really absurd. People don’t just get stuff they know they are going to get. That’s just how it works.
Think of it as maternity is attached to each policy, rather than the person. prostate coverage is also included. So is appendicitis, even if you had yours out at age 6.
🙂 I was trying to be bi-partisan on sounds bites. Give me a break! I’m tired of all the nasty and anger instead of focus on outcome. So tired..
@Kelly_3406
The plans that were offered to my spouse and I (through his employment) included what is now mandatory in a policy. We had choices of varying degrees of co-payments, deductibles, preferred providers, etc. I’m not sure that an employee could opt out of carrying health insurance at that place of employment. I’ll ask him when he gets back from the hardware store.
Oh dear Lord, Mr. Censored is having a Sunday morning male pilgrimage.
The county allowed you to take some money in exchange for not picking up their health coverage., It was never an even deal though. But you didn’t have to take it. Not sure if that was always the case or not.
I haven’t figured out what Kelly thinks you are wrong about.
I always got to know the HR people pretty well.
Ever read The Invisible Bankers by Andrew Tobias?
So I no longer have kids in the Manassas City public schools. Should that mean that I get a little tax break now and don’t have to pay for the schools and their upkeep?
Cool!
I’m one of the few people around who actually had to read a huge chunk of the PPACA, and only because I’m working on my MPH and not because I needed a sleep aid. There are parts I like a lot, and there are parts that I don’t like at all. But all in all, what is so bad about making sure that more people in this country are covered, and that my tax dollars aren’t spent on other people’s uninsured medical costs? And why should healthcare be a commodity, really? These little show trials are getting tiresome. And this is coming from someone who is decidedly non-liberal.
I will vouch for Emma being a non-liberal!
The ACA just seems like a good idea, generally for the reasons you have stated. No I don'[t think it is perfect or will be perfect, but its a starting place.
You are in a job where you will also see the good, bad and ugly faster than the rest of us so please keep up posted on such matters.
@Moon-howler
He discovered that the sink in the darkroom has sprung a leak. Then he called to say that he’d forgotten about the time change and had arrived at the store early and would kill a little time in the grocery store. I think this is a delaying tactic so that I’ll forget about all the damn leaves that need to be blown off the deck. (My mother once had to employ her insurance policy after trying to stuff leaves into a trash bag by pushing them too hard with her foot. After a couple injections didn’t do the trick, she had a knee replacement.)
This is quite the pilgrimage!!!
Young howler blew my leaves off the porch last weekend. There are just as many now as before he did it.
@Rick Bentley
The ACA will not reduce health care costs.
That is a sweeping pronouncement. Can’t you at least say, ” In your opinion….?
it’s already lowered Rick’s monthly costs.
@Emma
Because health care IS a commodity.
And your tax dollars ARE STILL paying for their healthcare in subsidies.
And 30 million are still not going to be covered.
The idea of a single man paying for maternity or single woman paying for prostate, etc…is absurd.
Nothing is wrong about getting more people covered. What is wrong is that this bill is not the way to go about it. Hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, some of which still haven’t been written….etc. (which have all been covered.)
I’m enjoying the shock of all those Democrats that voted for this and now find out that their premiums and deductibles have skyrocketed.
I don’t know anyone who has skyrocketing costs but Steve. Everyone else has stayed within the normal range of increase or decrease.
Cargo, you wanted it to fail from the day it was passed. (actually before)
Newsflash, you don’t know the outcome. You are speculating. You don’t know any more about it than the rest of us. Its as stupid for you to say it is going to fail as it is for me to say I know its going to succeed.
@Kelly_3406
The employees didn’t have to take the employer’s insurance coverage since they may have been covered under a spouse’s plan. But the coverage offered was good and paid in half by the employer.
@Cargosquid
But have you been shocked over the last ten years as premiums went up anyway?
@Censored bybvbl
Premiums HAVE gone up.
The ACA raises premiums too.
But then…EVERYTHING has gone up in the last ten years.
College tuition, food, energy, etc.
In the case of medical prices….some of the costs are caused by gov’t. Higher prices pay for the short fall in Medicare and Medicaid payments…and that will get worse. We are also subsidizing the development of new drugs for the entire world. And basic economics is in play….when the customer no longer is responsible for payment and the provider is in danger of being sued on a whim….prices go up.
Now we have a Democrat calling for forcing doctors and medical facilities to take medicare and medicaid. Doctors are retiring rather than deal with all of this.
So..in the next few years, we’ll have higher prices and less doctors…… yay us.
@Rick Bentley
I do not think the intellectual prowess on display by advocates of Obamacare has been any better. Healthcare costs are too high, but Obamacare is not the fix. The zeal of the Feds to control healthcare, … I mean, healthcare costs … should be restrained to first “do no harm.” The heavy regulation of Obamacare is increasing costs and causing people to lose benefits.
While the methods of the Tea Party are akin to a bull in a china shop, I cannot quarrel with their objectives. When a government program that transforms something as massive as healthcare is contemplated, it is the responsibility of advocates to develop legislation that has bi-partisan support. If they fail to do that, then it is not reasonable to expect insurance companies, consumers, and political opponents to cooperate.
The revelation that the Obama Administration lied about the ability to keep your doctor and insurance plan post-Obamacare should be chilling to voters. Without that promise, Obamacare would never have passed.
I think the ‘great lie’ happened after the passage of the bill.
Now let’s be serious…do you think that was a lie or do you think that there are quirks that need ironing out? Did Obama change the existing policies or did the companies do that? They didn’t have to, you know. They could have left them alone and done the grandfather clause thingie.
I have stopped paying much attention to those people opposing health care changes. I will concentrate on finding out whats wrong and fixing it rather than all the retro-whining about no republicans were allowed to attach amendments. As I recall, any amendments they wanted to attach cratered the bill. So of course, no amendments were allowed.
The insurance companies wanted to ditch the skeleton policies and go for the meat and potatoes I am thinking. Holler at them if you got screwed.
Do you have employer provided coverage?
@Kelly_3406
Kelly….they HAD to lie…..it was for our own good. Americans don’t have any judgment and would have killed this awesome plan that saves us all. President Obama knows best. Progressives always know best. That’s why they have to put people in charge of us instead of allowing freedom and individual judgment.
Central planning with one size fits all always works.
Let me see if I get this…All the liberals screamed that Bill Clinton lied about DADT. Everyone wore Pinocchio noses. Then there were the Bush lies. Iraq. WMD. More noses. Now Obama has supposedly liked about whether you can keep your half assed policy that might cover you if you have 5 heart attacks to get to the deductible. More noses.
Whoever makes Pinocchio noses is the one getting rich.
Bellow at the insurance companies. They are who changed, not the Prez.
Cargo, you are always setting yourself and like minded people up as the great majority. You really aren’t. Do da math.
@Kelly_3406
From where do you think bi-partisan support would have come? The present plan builds from conservative plans. Many people, including many doctors, would have preferred a single payer plan. Where would you garner support if half the Congress is solely committed to vetoing anything Obama proposes because of their intense dislike of him personally. I didn’t see alternatives being proposed. I didn’t see Congress looking out for the average citizen who isn’t an Obamaphobe. I think you have to look at the party of “No” and point a finger in that direction.
I make no bones about being a social liberal but my fiscal bent may be different. I see the cost and availability of healthcare as problems that need to be solved.
@Cargosquid
Let me rephrase, then: Why should HEALTH be a commodity?
We give out more foreign aid than anyone else. Why not redirect some of that to take care of all of our people in one of the most basic ways? You want stuff, then pull up your bootstraps, so to speak, work and contribute to society so you can get those things. But health is the most basic requirement before you can have or do anything else. Some people get too ill to even reach those bootstraps in the first place.
Wild cheering here in the peanut gallery, for Emma!
@Censored bybvbl
Let me remind you that no amendments were allowed from Republicans during the debate for Obamacare. None. Nada. So you do not really know what direction this would have taken if Obama had said something than, “We won. You lost. Get over it.”
With an attitude like that and the failure to allow ANY Republican amendments, are you really surprised that no one cooperated with him? Obamacare did not take effect for THREE years, so there was really no rush unless the goal was to RAM it through.
@Moon-howler
The ‘great lie’ happened before passage. Please read the first quote in this Washington Post blog:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/
As for the grandfather clause, the HHS has deliberately tightened rules to reduce the number of policies that are grandfathered in. For example, a premium increase as small as $5/month has been interpreted by HHS as a sufficient change to preclude the grandfather clause. Republicans attempted to remove this legislatively, but Senate Democrats voted it down.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/senate-democrats-supported-rule-that-lead-to-insurance-cancellations/
All policies go up over the years. I believe any change that undid the grandfathering in was policy change, not cost. Mine is up thirty bucks over 2 years. Same policy.
Still grandfathered.
Since health care is better off in the hands of republicans what have they offered? Stay as we are? Or just these non productive hearings. Ted Cruz has coverage through Goldman Sachs even though most employers don’t permit spouse coverage I’d the spouses employer offers coverage. I understand that Goldman Sachs has one of the most enviable plans in the US. I don’t imagine Ted wants anything to change.
The only plan I recall came from the heritage foundation but wait isn’t that the foundation of ACA?
So nothing had prevented Republicans from talking….besides non-entitlement entitlements what have the republicans suggested? Exactly. It should be exact because I understand it’s very simple to republicans.
“But all in all, what is so bad about making sure that more people in this country are covered, and that my tax dollars aren’t spent on other people’s uninsured medical costs? And why should healthcare be a commodity, really? These little show trials are getting tiresome.”
Three cheers.
It’s wild to me that we regulate gas, electricity, water, cable television, and phone access, but some people want to pretend that health care should be left to the same group of entrepeneurs who have inflated costs up to 60% more of what the rest of the world pays.
Auto insurance, flood insurance, home insurance and life insurance is also regulated. Stocks and bonds are regulated.
God forbid anyone regulate health insurance. It actually is regulated. Policies in Virginia have to carry some sort of coverage for autistic children. Maybe I should rebel. I don’t have an autistic child. That was pushed through the state by local republicans. Probably a good idea for those who have autistic children.
It’s more and more obvious what the driver is … fear of change. Point blank. Too many people are so afraid of change that they would rather we all sit and bleed money and accrue debt, and sit and pray that we keep our current job and health insurance and don’t go bankrupt. I’m losing less and less patience with these types of people. I’m starting to want to laugh at their pain.
We’re in this together as Americans – we’re trying to make health care better. It’s a process, not a magic bullet. If you can’t cope with that … the angst you choose to wallow in is your choice, and your prerogative. I’m just sorry that my premiums may go up to pay for your ulcers and high blood pressure as you continue to wallow in partisan ennui.
@Kelly_3406
Where was the effort to pass any healthcare reform while Bush was Prez? We know HillaryCare was pilloried but no real effort was made by the Republicans to find a solution to contain costs for the average policy holder in the meantime.
It wasn’t like the problem didn’t exist between 2000-2008 either. Mitt Romney saw the need…back before he drank the kool aid.
And by the way, when the teamsters were active in my husbands company we had really great health insurance and health retirement plan. I wish they’d come back.
Did it last into retirement also like so many union policies do?
ennui is probably not the right term … what I mean to say is “angst based on selective information and misinformation propagated by politicians for personal gain, which you choose to consider real due to lack of critical thinking and/or patriotism on your part”.
I loathed a lot of what our previous President did. And others before him. But once something actually became law, I didn’t sit and actively cheer for America to fail. I’m not sick in that way.
I remember more and more vividly how we collectively confronted health care costs in 1993 … how the Republican party managed to kill the efforts … and how they proposed nothing over the next 15 years save GWB’s prescription drug giveaway which helped to solidify high costs. I see the same jokers out with their lances trying to kill other people’s efforts now, arguing for a return to the status quo that creates debt and misery, and I am coming to think that the majority of Republicans are brain-dead and/or so emotionally retarded that they cannot function reasonably.
@Moon-howler
You’re right. It’s a $5 change in co-pay.
http://patterico.com/2013/10/30/sebelius-testifies-to-congress/comment-page-9/
I’m pretty sure that 90% of Republican voters would change their views if they were granted a few therapy sessions where they could work out personal issues. “So when I was pretending that America was being overrun with non-working minorities, what i was really afraid of was …”
@Rick Bentley
It is fear of stupid, ineffective, costly change managed by bureaucrats haven’t the slightest idea what they are doing.
I have presented FACTS. All you have come up with are supposition and insulting assumptions about motivation.
In the early 2000 Hilary and Newt were in agreement on many aspects of her proposals. NYT had some articles. George Mitchell (I think) said we don’t have a health care problem we have an insurance company problem. As asked, anyone read The Invisible Bankers? Insurance is nothing more than large unregulated financial institution.
Sucking in people’s money…..
Remember when the Republicans came up with an absolutely awesome, nonpartisan, comprehensive healthcare reform that addressed their fear of skyrocketing costs in 1/6 of the US economy after they won back the presidency in 2000?
Said no one, ever.
crickets….
If we can’t get past party on a BLOG …..of course this blog has outlived a few other local ones that were all negative all the time –
Ah, the attack blogs….and lord help you if you disagree with the owners…even still.
We have survived, thanks to everyone here….even when we fight like cats and dogs.
Yes you have. Kudos. Eat bread and celebrate.
Moon–freshly-made vanilla bean frozen custard — it’s what’s for dessert tonight. Cheers!
@Moon-howler
Yep.
@Moon-howler
The overall “costs” are expected to break 12 trillion over the next 10 years per the CBO.
His cost may have gone down…..paid for by an increase in others.
@Emma
Remember when it was the business of the federal government to interfere in the the healthcare industry and institute central planning…….
Me neither.
@Lyssa
“than large unregulated financial institution.”
Unregulated? You appear to have a different definition of “unregulated.”
@Rick Bentley
And yet it was the Republicans that predicted this disaster. They stated that you CANNOT cover all people, prevent people from being dropped or added, increase coverage and lower everyone’s costs.
But we were ridiculed for pointing out that the math said that is what would happen.
Or perhaps you do? Those model laws don’t begin to touch it. @Cargo.
Oh, the republicans did this and republicans desperately tried to prevent that and they’re just oh so perfect……time to move on, Skippy.
It’s like listening to a friend of mine crowing about her son. Geez, there has never been a more perfect human.
“It is fear of stupid, ineffective, costly change managed by bureaucrats haven’t the slightest idea what they are doing.”
You actually believe the system could somehow become more balled up than it already was? Not very likely. We have the costliest system in the world – beating the next in line by 60%. And for all that cost, we’re one of the worst at covering people. Um, I think it’s a safe bet that we can make it better.
“And yet it was the Republicans that predicted this disaster. ”
It’s a disaster? Really? I think you’re deep in a right-wing echo chamber if you think so.
The Republicans have had no constructive proposals on this matter within anyone’s memory. They’re pathologically dedicated to attacking anything with “Obama” in its name. That’s become more important to them than mundane matters like actually governing America or planning for its future.
They’re the party of obstructive whiners. Increasingly.
I provided a fairly detailed discussion in another thread for a healthcare system based on health savings accounts, coverage for catastrophic events, and tax breaks. An idea like this is one of the few ways to contain cost, because it removes the disconnect between patients and the cost of healthcare. It requires the individual/family to pay for all costs up to a yearly maximum before any insurance benefits would take effect. Coverage would be based on annual cost thresholds that do not specify treatments that are included. Large medical expenses could be handled with tax deductions and negative income tax for families near the poverty level.
A system like this would put people on charge of their own healthcare and reduce costs due to the direct out-of-pocket payments for normal routine costs and tests below the cost threshold.
This is a simple idea. Why haven’t Rs proposed something like this? Probably because it would involve direct costs to consumers which would impose a political price.
I can’t imagine anyone wanting it.
What happens when they run out of money?
Oh! You have a more perfect solutiion worked out in your head. Well, meanwhile do you think we should do nothing, let the republicans get political traction killing the current attempt at reform, and then revisit the issue in 15-20 years?
You’ve got some solution that you consider more perfect. (It’s similar to what my own company’s health care plan has moved to, and I don’t doubt that we’re all moving in that direction over the coming years – involving the patient in the costs of care beyond some negligable co-pay amount). I could invent one as well. Meanwhile, since ACA is the law of the land, how about we move forward from the current starting point and try to improve it as needs be?