It’s exceedingly rare that politicians get to use that classic retort, “your mom.” But Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) got in a jab against Jon Kyl (R-AZ) earlier today. Kyl was arguing against mandating the minimum coverage insurance plans provide, and set up a straw man argument suggesting that men would be required to carry maternity coverage. Stabenow archly pointed out that, while men obviously do not need maternity coverage, it’s absolutely crucial that it be covered for women.
KYL: 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.
STABENOW: If I could just interject once with my colleague — I think your mom probably did.
A good dig by Stabenow notwithstanding, Kyl raises a good point. If you are going to say one of the goals is to drive competition and innovation in coverage, we need to limit the level of specificity that we are mandating.
I wouldn't be so quick to brush the notion aside as a strawman. While the specific example of mandating maternity care for men may be a red herring, the whole idea of allowing people to purchase a tier of care that they choose is crucial to healthcare reform which still allows choice of medical care tha Americans are accustomed to.
Until we see how the federal government approaches coverage mandates in practice, we can't rule it out. As I've continually said, passing a bill is the easy part. Executing a program in the real world that lives up to the promises is where the real work begins.
In fact, only 14 states mandate maternity care, for women! You see, pregnancy is an elective procedure that should only be undertaken by the privileged. So, arguing about men being forced to buy maternity care is ludicrous. I think the first step would be making it available to women, and that is what the Republicans want to avoid. They just use men as the sleight of hand distraction.
You see, pregnancy is an elective procedure that should only be undertaken by the privileged
I wouldn't go that far. But you are on to something.
Choosing to try to start a family is a big deal. One needs to be comfortable that they can provide the child a good life. Can you give them the parental attention they need? Do you have your own issues sorted out enough so the child can be the focal point of the family? Do you have a lifestyle that will give the child the stability you would want? Do you have a home that will be a safe and comfortable place for the child to grow in? And yes, do you have the resources to provide basic things for your children, such as clothing, food, and medical care?
That is why I'm a pro-choicer. A parent needs to make a series of good choices for a kid to even have a chance in this world.
"Specificity", a new right wing word. A new goal line to reach. The argument can never be won against these asshats because they keep changing their position. Adopting new ones, when the old arguments don't perform. Okay, you want less "specificity", try this on for size. Cover everything for everybody. There all done and at one time, not specific but ultimately specific.
My wife and I had everything you mentioned when we had a child, but there is no way we could have afforded a birth. Luckily we had government provided health care from Tricare, so we went to the best hospital in the area and didn't pay a dime.
Not covering maternity care will gurantee only the privileged will be able to have kids in a healthy environment. This is shortsighted in the extreme because bad pre-natal and birth care leads to much more expensive things down the road.
A middle class family cannot afford child birth without insurance. You seem to imply that it is irresponsible to have a child unless you can foot all the medical bills yourself.
In fact, I don't think having kids is about a class. Having kids is about readiness as you define it, and making that choice. The fact you had insurance through Tricare was a fact, and that was one of many factors that made you someone who was able to welcome a child into what sounds like a good environment.
Also, I would suggest that you did afford a birth. Insurance, in your case Tricare, enabled you to pay for a major event with past and future contributions to Tricare's risk pool. Tricare didn't pay for it, the administered payment of your bill. You paid for it, presumably through service to our country.
As an aside, one of my problems with the modern Republican party is that they don't want abortion to ever be an option for anyone, but then they are also unwilling to fund prenatal care and piss and moan about covering the child through SCHIP once they are born. I see the pro-life view and the no-prenatal funding position as contradictory.
I know… this is a great straw-man argument. It almost sounds like it means something when you talk about levels of care. Starting with no plastic surgery and ending with death panels, what will happen to us when Insurance company underwriters are no longer in charge of our healthcare?
What if it covers Tay-Sachs disease, or sickle cell anemia, or Hemophilia or color blindness… I don't have any of those and nobody in family has those. We can't have that now can we? Just make sure that Type 2 Diabetes is covered though…
Kathy, he and his fellow soldiers did on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, France, Germany and everywhere else selfish citizens like you sent him. Some paid the highest price, most sacrificed important time in young lives, and then they hear from conservatives like you how they don't deserve it? You sure are quick to make statements about something you obviously know nothing about.
" TRICARE is the Department of Defense's health care program for members of the uniformed services, their families and survivors."
Anyone who receives Tricare coverage fully deserves every benefit it offers, and in my opinion has more than earned that coverage. I hope it has been a good insurance for you and your family, Alec.
I know what you mean. Isn’t it unbelievable?
A good dig by Stabenow notwithstanding, Kyl raises a good point. If you are going to say one of the goals is to drive competition and innovation in coverage, we need to limit the level of specificity that we are mandating.
Dan, do you think anybody is really going to mandate maternity coverage for men? This is a straw man, pure and simple.
I wouldn't be so quick to brush the notion aside as a strawman. While the specific example of mandating maternity care for men may be a red herring, the whole idea of allowing people to purchase a tier of care that they choose is crucial to healthcare reform which still allows choice of medical care tha Americans are accustomed to.
Until we see how the federal government approaches coverage mandates in practice, we can't rule it out. As I've continually said, passing a bill is the easy part. Executing a program in the real world that lives up to the promises is where the real work begins.
In fact, only 14 states mandate maternity care, for women! You see, pregnancy is an elective procedure that should only be undertaken by the privileged. So, arguing about men being forced to buy maternity care is ludicrous. I think the first step would be making it available to women, and that is what the Republicans want to avoid. They just use men as the sleight of hand distraction.
You see, pregnancy is an elective procedure that should only be undertaken by the privileged
I wouldn't go that far. But you are on to something.
Choosing to try to start a family is a big deal. One needs to be comfortable that they can provide the child a good life. Can you give them the parental attention they need? Do you have your own issues sorted out enough so the child can be the focal point of the family? Do you have a lifestyle that will give the child the stability you would want? Do you have a home that will be a safe and comfortable place for the child to grow in? And yes, do you have the resources to provide basic things for your children, such as clothing, food, and medical care?
That is why I'm a pro-choicer. A parent needs to make a series of good choices for a kid to even have a chance in this world.
"Specificity", a new right wing word. A new goal line to reach. The argument can never be won against these asshats because they keep changing their position. Adopting new ones, when the old arguments don't perform. Okay, you want less "specificity", try this on for size. Cover everything for everybody. There all done and at one time, not specific but ultimately specific.
My wife and I had everything you mentioned when we had a child, but there is no way we could have afforded a birth. Luckily we had government provided health care from Tricare, so we went to the best hospital in the area and didn't pay a dime.
Not covering maternity care will gurantee only the privileged will be able to have kids in a healthy environment. This is shortsighted in the extreme because bad pre-natal and birth care leads to much more expensive things down the road.
A middle class family cannot afford child birth without insurance. You seem to imply that it is irresponsible to have a child unless you can foot all the medical bills yourself.
Not implying that at all.
In fact, I don't think having kids is about a class. Having kids is about readiness as you define it, and making that choice. The fact you had insurance through Tricare was a fact, and that was one of many factors that made you someone who was able to welcome a child into what sounds like a good environment.
Also, I would suggest that you did afford a birth. Insurance, in your case Tricare, enabled you to pay for a major event with past and future contributions to Tricare's risk pool. Tricare didn't pay for it, the administered payment of your bill. You paid for it, presumably through service to our country.
As an aside, one of my problems with the modern Republican party is that they don't want abortion to ever be an option for anyone, but then they are also unwilling to fund prenatal care and piss and moan about covering the child through SCHIP once they are born. I see the pro-life view and the no-prenatal funding position as contradictory.
So, Alec…who paid your dimes?
I know… this is a great straw-man argument. It almost sounds like it means something when you talk about levels of care. Starting with no plastic surgery and ending with death panels, what will happen to us when Insurance company underwriters are no longer in charge of our healthcare?
What if it covers Tay-Sachs disease, or sickle cell anemia, or Hemophilia or color blindness… I don't have any of those and nobody in family has those. We can't have that now can we? Just make sure that Type 2 Diabetes is covered though…
It's not a red herring, it's a straw man. Takes real balls to come up with such an asinine one, too.
Provided of course that hospitals and other medical care providers are allowed to deny care, including emergency room care to those that cannot pay.
Good aside DtM. Thanks for that thought. It frustrates me too.
Kathy, he and his fellow soldiers did on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, France, Germany and everywhere else selfish citizens like you sent him. Some paid the highest price, most sacrificed important time in young lives, and then they hear from conservatives like you how they don't deserve it? You sure are quick to make statements about something you obviously know nothing about.
" TRICARE is the Department of Defense's health care program for members of the uniformed services, their families and survivors."
Anyone who receives Tricare coverage fully deserves every benefit it offers, and in my opinion has more than earned that coverage. I hope it has been a good insurance for you and your family, Alec.