Stabenow Replies To Kyl: You Don’t Need Maternity Benefits, ‘But Your Mother Did’
Stabenow Replies To Kyl: You Don’t Need Maternity Benefits, ‘But Your Mother Did’
This afternoon, while debating an amendment to prohibit the federal government from “defining the health care benefits offered through private insurance,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued, “I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) interjected into Kyl’s remarks to remind him, “I think your mom probably did.” Watch it:
Kyl’s amendment would prohibit the government from defining which benefits should be included in a standard benefit package and would permit health insurance companies to design policies that exclude higher-cost beneficiaries. Currently, “it is difficult and costly for women to find health insurance that covers maternity care” in the individual health insurance market. According to a survey conducted by the National Women’s Law Center, the vast majority of individual market health insurance policies “do not cover maternity care at all. A limited number of insurers sell separate maternity coverage for an additional fee known as a ‘rider,’ but this supplemental coverage is often expensive and limited in scope.”
A well defined minimum benefits package would compel health insurers to provide basic services to all Americans. The Kyl amendment, which ultimately failed, would have allowed the industry to continue profiting from discriminatory practices. As former health insurance executive Wendell Potter explained in an interview with ThinkProress, insurers would like to move us all into “these limited benefit plans that are very skimpy and don’t cover you, don’t cover what you need. That way, when you do get sick, they’re not on the hook to pay you anything. They would love to have you enrolled in these.”
12 Responses to “Stabenow Replies To Kyl: You Don’t Need Maternity Benefits, ‘But Your Mother Did’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Bravo Sen. Debbie Stabenow! You made my morning.
September 25th, 2009 at 1:14 pmWell, I think Debbie knows all about how working women get cheated on, or does that happen when they let themselves go?
Keep it up, big red.
September 25th, 2009 at 1:41 pmWhat I really could have used 60 years ago was some cheap, effective birth control! What an embarrassment my boy is. Sorry folks.
September 25th, 2009 at 1:42 pmNow son, don’t listen to Mother Kyl – she’s still as wacko as ever. You just represent the logic and independence of our civil society. If momma wants breast implants and I want hair plugs, well, I’ll just find us an insurance policy that covers those – across state lines if you can help us there – and I don’t expect the government to provide them for me. No handouts here, nosiree!
September 25th, 2009 at 3:33 pmWhat a jerk, delay tactics weren’t enough, this guy is a mysoginist – sick of congressional paternalism – no maternity care, please, give me a break. Don’t forget Kyl, I thought sperm had something to do with it, you guys are party to pregnancy. Basic biology.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:47 pm—- As evidenced by his colloquy with Senator Stabenow, Kyl’s attitude is if I personally don’t need it, why should I pay for it? Examples of this are: if I don’t drive, why should I pay for better roads? If I don’t have kids at home, why should I pay school taxes.
—- Kyl’s is a strange posture for a legislator representing an entire state to take. Surely Kyl has voted for legislation that will help some, but not all, of his constituents, even if they are not his campaign contributors. His opposition to including maternity care in the healthcare bill may, more importantly, be indicative of not only an inability to see the importance of maternity care from a public health standpoint, but of an essential self-centeredness and inability to empathize, a characteristic he seems to share with colleagues on his side of the aisle.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pmDon’t let this moment pass without noting exactly what is wrong with Freepers, Republicans, etc.: They don’t understand the concept of insurance. Insurance is there to make sure that nothing catastrophic happens: you don’t die and leave your toddler child penniless, you don’t get injured at work without some disability protection, you don’t go bankrupt because you got an illness. The reason it works is because many people are in the risk pool, contributing, and only a few get large payouts. But all are safer because of the insurance. T
Glibertarians and rightwingers don’t get this. They think that the big payout is bad. No, the benefit is not the money, it’s the fact of being (and feeling) protected. That allows you to be an entepreneur and start a business, or just get married and start a family.
But Kyl doesn’t get it. It’s all about the fact that the payout might go to somebody else, or that his rates are too high because the pool isn’t small and tailored to him. But if the pool is small and tailored to a 60+ male, then his rates will go through the roof, because of his heart attack, cancer and stroke risk. So he is a huge beneficiary of the big pool. His ignorance on this point is amazing.
This also shows up in how they view social security. It’s terrible, it doesn’t earn the returns that you get in the stock market (ironic smile here)! But since it is a guaranteed payout, a responsible fund administrator can’t invest in the market. she/he has to invest very conservatively. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. And it means, once again, that all participants have assured minimum income in retirement. So we are free to take risks, start businesses, have children, spend on educating them, etc.
Again, Republicans just don’t understand the benefits of insurance. Nor do they understand how the social safety net delivers precisely the benefits that they want from society – an educated workforce that confidently forms families, starts businesses, takes risks, and maximizes their productivity.
Who can explain this ignorance?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pmTypical Daddy mentality, putting pregnancy coverage on the same level of importance as hair plugs. That would be as crazy as covering Viagra, but not birth control. Oh, sorry, that’s the way it currently is.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:36 pmAnyone who thinks breast implants and hair plugs are the same as maternity care should take a peek a basic anatomy text book before responding publicly to anything. Save yourself the embarrassment.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pmGotta love Republicans.
Don’t believe in abortion but don’t want to healthcare for the fetus or the uterus that is growing the fetus.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pmHere are a few questions for Kyle and I hope to get an answer from him. Do you have any children? Did your wife have any type of maternal healthcare? If so who paid for the services?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:47 amI looked at one of the links in the above article “do not cover maternity care at all” and found my situation to be directly opposite of the NWLCR report. I live in Durham, NC and purchase insurance on the individual market for my family: husband, daughter and myself. All of the 4 big insurance companies in NC (BC/BS, Wellpath, United HealthCare, Cigna, Aetna) provide maternity care. It may be that the state regulations mandate it, I’m not sure. Yes, they do charge more for a woman than man of the same age. Research probably shows that women generate more costs than men, which you would expect to then pay more for coverage….JUST AS A SMOKER PAYS MORE FOR HEALTHCARE.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am