(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the government’s major health insurance programs says maternity coverage should be optional for patients.
Why would maternity coverage for a patient as an option be considered a bad thing? I guess I don’t understand the thumbs down.
That makes perfectly logical sense. Why should my 80-year-old mother be required to pay for maternity care when she obviously will never get pregnant again?
Considering that we all have a stake in protecting the unborn, and we were once unborn ourselves, it is reasonable payback for everyone to chip in for maternity care.
I agree with this statement 100% in principle.
With that said, I’m not so sure that it is the role of the federal government to force everyone to comply with that conviction.
It’s terribly hypocritical for the Trump and the GOP to wave the “pro-life” flag when they’re kicking those unborn (and to-be born) babies’ mothers off REQUIRED maternity leave coverage.
It’s alarming how many people can’t name the ten items required by the ACA. Obamacare’s bad and evil and kills babies, but very few people know that the ACA prohibits insurance carriers from excluding newborn babies mothers from maternity leave coverage.
The article addresses ‘maternity coverage’, not ‘maternity leave coverage’.
That’s OK. Everything randomuser said still applies to maternity coverage.
If true, that’s crazy.
Not many people even really plan children anymore much less change thier insurance plan for one.
Just another reason to abort. Unless I’m missing something.
Not all countries in the world provide maternity care on government basis. Sure if the mother cannot afford it, it should be on welfare basis.
Pro-life is another thing altogether though which is not to kill unborn babies.
But yes, people can give all sort of argument to justify their preference, but it is disingenuous to mix the two.
Before the ACA existed, maternity coverage as an option was required - as an option. Not sure I disagree with that same concept. Perhaps I’m missing something. The article is very vague.
Then be honest about it and propose a universal tax to cover all prenatal care rather than the backdoor method of forcing people to purchase something they don’t need from a private company.
In fairness to President Trump, his “waving the pro-life flag,” was very late and perfunctory. In fairness to the GOP, the choice of nominee was also an indication the the “pro-life flag” is not a serious issue. I see no hypocrisy. I see a weakening of the importance of abortion in the GOP.
I no longer have a gall bladder. Can I get cheaper insurance by not having coverage for gall bladder surgery?
No, it is just inconvenient for your view.
“Required as an option” means you can pay extra and get it. “Required” means everyone has to pay for it. Since “everyone” has a stake in protecting the unborn, it makes sense that “everyone” chip in.
If I were in power I would propose exactly that. But it probably wouldn’t pass because of people’s aversion to the word “tax”, even though the individual mandate does the same thing.
This is a great point.
It’s seems to me that, in theory, we should pay for what we want coverage for. The problem comes in when you have people with a rare disease such as cystic fibrosis that most people don’t have a condition for, that makes that specific coverage too expensive for anyone to be able to afford. Further complicating that is - should I be forced to pay for plastic surgery for the actor who relies on that surgery for his profession, the woman who wants to terminate her child, or the man who has prostate cancer?
Obviously universal health care only makes sense when restricted to the kind of care that most everyone agrees is necessary for life. I am disappointed that the ACA went so far in including questionable services. I would not mind seeing that list pared down. But maternity care should stay on the list.