Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maternity was an optional rider which had an additional premium if you took it.
Exactly!
A base policy with riders has been changed into a coverall will increase premiums to all. That is the problem with ACA.
Instead the sane fix is to have the goverment cover the riders! Base coverage for all to buy and riders for goverment to cover! Small life time max and goverment covers over max!
Now a record number of Americans say that health care is NOT the government's responsibility--56% of us. The amazing thing is, this is a complete switch from 2008, when 54% of us said it IS the government's responsibility.
So the tragically horrible design and selling and implementation of Obamacare has perhaps set back the cause of government health care by decades.
Nice work, Nancy and Harry and Barry. You blew it.
Not in anything I have seen in 20-30 years. I do appreciate that Texas may be just catching with the rest of us now. Seriously, you must have worked for a very male dominated chauvinistic company. Once women entered the workplace in large numbers and at positions of responsibility, maternity became a standard part of employer offerings. I think my company went that way about 1985 or so. And it was the same with life insurance. Men did not pay more. Domestic partner benefits became commonplace years ago as well. Do you have that in Texas?
Once again we are talking about individual policies not employer!
You need to stay on the road we are talking about! That other road is a whole different discussion for next yr.
I get it... You want to talk employer based policies... But that is totally different than the individual market was set up. There was a reason the individual market was set up the way it was. It worked! It gave people choices they could afford. It wasnt perfect but it covered a needed market.
The federal goverment decided to cover a small group that fell thru the hole by blowing up the individual market and making those pay for stuff they didnt want or need to pay for those who fell thru the hole. They modeled it like the employer plan. You cant make that work with first in money.
Instead they should have just taken those who could not afford a policy and those who were denied and cover them under a federal program. Lower costs for all on individual polices by making low lifetime max ( exact opps) and then cover the overages for those who max out.
I am done explaining it to you ponderosa. If this doesnt explain it to you nothing will.
I didn't see any actual content in your reply, just remarking on Madcow. Maybe it was a technical glitch?
It had plenty of content, it was just in reference to part of your post that you don't want to discuss. Don't put it out there if you don't want it commented on.
Ah, I get it. Women don't deserve to have help from men in covering their maternity care because some women get abortions. And even the women who aren't getting abortions but are carrying their pregnancies to term don't deserve having men share the costs because some other women get abortions. Thus, no women deserve to have their maternity costs shared. Yeah, that's fair.
Please explain to me, why I have to pay for their pregnancy? I didn't have a thing to do with it. I'm not male.....I couldn't have knocked them up....so, why am I paying for their sex lives?
Please explain to me, why I have to pay for their pregnancy? I didn't have a thing to do with it. I'm not male.....I couldn't have knocked them up....so, why am I paying for their sex lives?
Why are you paying for anyone else's auto accident, their cancer, their appendectomy? It's group rating!
As a Conservative, you should want to help to support pregnant women who are carrying to full term. Why would you want to punish them when they are the ones who are behaving exactly as you want them to? That makes zero sense.
And again, procreation takes both a male and a female, so why shouldn't both genders share the cost as well?
First of all, procreation does not take a male and a female. It takes a sperm, an egg, an incubator, and an owner that doesn't decide to kill it.
Since men have no say in the outcome of their children until birth, there is no reason we should be responsible for the cost. Fair is fair.
Typical of conservative men. They take no responsibility for ejaculating their sperm during intercourse without using a condom and no responsibility for the pregnancy that they caused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing Obamacare has done for America...
Typical of conservative men. They take no responsibility for ejaculating their sperm during intercourse without using a condom and no responsibility for the pregnancy that they caused.