• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we require helth insurance to cover maternity care?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It sounds like in the second or third prong of Trumpcare they are going to take out of required insurance coverage maternity and OB-gyn care. This would then force women to pay extra for such coverage, similar to what they had before the ACA. Do you think that you agree with this change?
 
independentusa said:
It sounds like in the second or third prong of Trumpcare they are going to take out of required insurance coverage maternity and OB-gyn care. This would then force women to pay extra for such coverage, similar to what they had before the ACA. Do you think that you agree with this change?
Click to expand...

I sure do.there should be no required health care! Choose what you wish to buy!
 
independentusa said:
It sounds like in the second or third prong of Trumpcare they are going to take out of required insurance coverage maternity and OB-gyn care. This would then force women to pay extra for such coverage, similar to what they had before the ACA. Do you think that you agree with this change?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Only those who need the coverage should be required to pay for the coverage. If an insurance company wants to offer a policy at a lower cost to those who don't need maternity coverage, why should that be against the law?
 
So you think that men should pay extra for coverage of cancer of the testicles and prostate that have always been covered but women can't get? It will shoot up the cost of coverage a lot if we divide every thing into its components. We will all pay a lot more for insurance.
 
independentusa said:
It sounds like in the second or third prong of Trumpcare they are going to take out of required insurance coverage maternity and OB-gyn care. This would then force women to pay extra for such coverage, similar to what they had before the ACA. Do you think that you agree with this change?
Click to expand...

It is only necessary, if the alternative is forcing the taxpayers to otherwise pay the bill. So let the people choose well knowing that they will get health care only to the point they or their families pay for it. It's a free country. It should be a free choice.

The alternative is forcing every person to take basic one for all premium insurance with coverage equaling a premium of $100 or $200 monthly. If one doesn't pay for health care it is punished as severe fraud.
 
Before the ACA a 1,000 employers a month were dropping their employees health Insurance plans as they had become too expensive. When this begins again after the end of the ACA, hope you are not one of those who lose their health insurance.
 
independentusa said:
It sounds like in the second or third prong of Trumpcare they are going to take out of required insurance coverage maternity and OB-gyn care. This would then force women to pay extra for such coverage, similar to what they had before the ACA. Do you think that you agree with this change?
Click to expand...

The alternative is to force all non-childbearing people (yes that includes lots of women too) to pay more instead. Why should the government, instead of the person choosing an insurance plan, decide what "must be" covered by it? Surly if maternity care "must be" covered then so should adult dental and vision care - many more folks have teeth and eyes than will become mothers. Why is it that "special" care (like dental and vision) should not be optional and available for an additional charge?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Absolutely. Only those who need the coverage should be required to pay for the coverage. If an insurance company wants to offer a policy at a lower cost to those who don't need maternity coverage, why should that be against the law?
Click to expand...

Exactly, insurance coverage should only cover what you need. If you only incur 100$ worth of medical bills in a year, then you should be able to buy insurance that only covers those 100$. If you don't need it, why pay for it?

This is exactly the kind of plan the GOP is offering to 20+ million people. It's called you don't get to have health insurance, and your cost is whatever your medical bills happen to be. You only have to pay for exactly what you need....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The alternative is to force all non-childbearing people (yes that includes lots of women too) to pay more instead. Why should the government, instead of the person choosing an insurance plan, decide what "must be" covered by it? Surly if maternity care "must be" covered then so should adult dental and vision care - many more folks have teeth and eyes than will become mothers. Why is it that "special" care (like dental and vision) should not be optional and available for an additional charge?
Click to expand...
What are these things, logic and consistency, of which you speak?
 
independentusa said:
Before the ACA a 1,000 employers a month were dropping their employees health Insurance plans as they had become too expensive. When this begins again after the end of the ACA, hope you are not one of those who lose their health insurance.
Click to expand...

Lol....link please ? Or did you just make that up ?

Requiring people to pay for coverage they didnt need and or would never use never made any sense. Its good its on its way out
 
I don't want to pay for other people to breed. We need to stop creating so many freaking humans. More people are not making the situation any better.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't want to pay for other people to breed. We need to stop creating so many freaking humans. More people are not making the situation any better.
Click to expand...

So that makes covering birth control and vasectomies worth it to you then.
 
The idea of inssurance is to pool money together and reduce a single payers liabilty-cost. The larger the pool, the lower the cost to an individual. What you are suggesting might actually in the long run increase the cost of your insurance, especially with women now outnumbering men.
 
independentusa said:
It sounds like in the second or third prong of Trumpcare they are going to take out of required insurance coverage maternity and OB-gyn care. This would then force women to pay extra for such coverage, similar to what they had before the ACA. Do you think that you agree with this change?
Click to expand...
People who are purchasing something should be able to use what they are purchasing. I don't see it fair for single men, or men who do not want children to pay for any kind of coverage in regards to children. It's money down the drain. Relatively healthy people already pay an exorbitant amount of money on coverage that frankly, they don't use.

independentusa said:
So you think that men should pay extra for coverage of cancer of the testicles and prostate that have always been covered but women can't get? It will shoot up the cost of coverage a lot if we divide every thing into its components. We will all pay a lot more for insurance.
Click to expand...
The question is: For men who have testicular or prostate cancer, what's it worth to them to get the treatment they need? Is cancer treatment more important than the cell phone bill? The cable bill? Unlimited high-speed internet? That brand new iPhone, when there's nothing wrong with their current iPhone? That big land yacht that should have an anchor, instead of a parking brake?

radcen said:
Similar question: Should smokers be charged a surcharge just for being smokers?
Click to expand...
Yes. Smoking is a completely unnecessary habit. The surcharge should be a direct consequence. Same thing for alcoholics. Don't want the surcharge? Put the bottle down.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
People who are purchasing something should be able to use what they are purchasing. I don't see it fair for single men, or men who do not want children to pay for any kind of coverage in regards to children. It's money down the drain. Relatively healthy people already pay an exorbitant amount of money on coverage that frankly, they don't use.
Click to expand...
How would you handle the woman who has no intention of ever getting pregnant... then does. I presume you would not require her to purchase child birth coverage because she didn't need it, prior to getting pregnant. How about afterward? Would she get to purchase it then?
 
radcen said:
How would you handle the woman who has no intention of ever getting pregnant... then does. I presume you would not require her to purchase child birth coverage because she didn't need it, prior to getting pregnant. How about afterward? Would she get to purchase it then?
Click to expand...

How do you handle 16-year olds who previously didn't need automobile insurance, but now want to drive a car? Insurance plans should be flexible. People should be able to opt in or out of coverages, depending on their needs.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
How do you handle 16-year olds who previously didn't need automobile insurance, but now want to drive a car? Insurance plans should be flexible. People should be able to opt in or out of coverages, depending on their needs.
Click to expand...
:neutral:

I hope you're a ditch digger, because you have a horrible mind for business. I feel this is a waste of time, but other people read it, too, so here goes.

The OBVIOUS difference between auto and health insurance is that stuff happens pertaining to driving only when one drives a vehicle, hence insurance is only pertinent when one drives. With health, on the other hand, life happens whether you want it to or not. Short of dying you cannot choose to not have life happen simply by not living. Under what you say here people would just pop in and out of insurance based on their need that day. I got cancer? Whoops, better get some insurance and get somebody else to pay for it. Yeah, there's a good business model. :roll:
 
independentusa said:
It sounds like in the second or third prong of Trumpcare they are going to take out of required insurance coverage maternity and OB-gyn care. This would then force women to pay extra for such coverage, similar to what they had before the ACA. Do you think that you agree with this change?
Click to expand...

I like the idea of being able to buy simply what you want and don't like these one size fits all type plans. Like buying a car, if I don't want to tow anything or listen to music I would hope that I could get a car without that stuff. Or cable TV-would like to buy the 5-8 channels that I want to watch and not pay a higher price because ESPN or something expensive is part of the one or two of the packages I could buy that also has those 5-8 channels.
 
Mithros said:
Exactly, insurance coverage should only cover what you need. If you only incur 100$ worth of medical bills in a year, then you should be able to buy insurance that only covers those 100$. If you don't need it, why pay for it?

This is exactly the kind of plan the GOP is offering to 20+ million people. It's called you don't get to have health insurance, and your cost is whatever your medical bills happen to be. You only have to pay for exactly what you need....
Click to expand...

I'm sure you actually probably believe that. And that is really sad. :(
 
Should we require health insurance to cover maternity care?
Click to expand...

or we could just cover basic care for everyone like other first world countries.
 
joG said:
It is only necessary, if the alternative is forcing the taxpayers to otherwise pay the bill. So let the people choose well knowing that they will get health care only to the point they or their families pay for it. It's a free country. It should be a free choice.

The alternative is forcing every person to take basic one for all premium insurance with coverage equaling a premium of $100 or $200 monthly. If one doesn't pay for health care it is punished as severe fraud.
Click to expand...

Well that is not going to happen. we are not going just let people die in the street if they aren't covered. Go to Russia if you want that . The uncovered here will flock to the most expensive care available, hospital emergency rooms. Not to mention the extra care for birth defects caused by the lack of maternity care. This is the reason all other countries include health care in their taxes and pay half of our HC costs. It is a basic human right and all enlightened countries know that. We know that here too but the insurers are just too embedded in Washington for us to actually do it. So we all pay for the uncovered with a "secret" 25% surcharge on all our premiums It is a disgrace and at least the ACA stopped the insurers from gouging more and more for themselves. Get ready to pay more for less, the insurer CEO's and their stockholders will demand it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom