jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (102 posts)

Addressing the: "ACA makes you buy maternity insurance" claim.

  1. Josak profile image61
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    I have head this bit of nonsense a bit recently and will do my best to clear it up (it's not complicated).
    The maternity care cost in the ACA is not in case you as a 70 year old man get pregnant (obviously) it's there to pay for maternity treatment for anyone who actually does need it which means yes *gasp* this bill will make you pay a little to ensure new born mothers and babies have the healthcare they need, I know Obama is just that evil.

    It's a sort of sick joke considering how outraged conservatives are on the issue of abortion and the protection of the baby. But now the baby has left the womb... well it's on it's own and they will not willingly give one cent to hep it.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Will this advocate the professional welfare recipient to increase its earning power as it has done for the UK resident?

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So now the NHS is to blame for single parent families! Amazing.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Who mentioned single parent families then John?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The " professional welfare recipient" is hardly likely to be a bloke if you are talking about healthcare covering pregnancy.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I wasn't specific about the welfare recipient but as you have mentioned it did you know that 71% of single parents receive housing benefit? That there are 2 million single parents in the UK, that Lewisham for instance has the largest population of single parents at 58%, that the UK has the highest proportion of single parent families in Europe.
              Now not all of these are the lone parents fault but the system has made it easier for families to break up and for mothers to have children without thought of the consequences.

              However I was thinking of the family units who have decided that benefits are the answer to their lifestyle choice and then bang out children when ever an increase in benefits are needed.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But what has any of that got to do with the NHS and provision for pregnancy?

                1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Its free to those who don't work John, advocating the growth of the professional welfare recipient and the 11 child family on benefits.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What is free to those who don't work? Not the NHS because as it is funded out of taxes everybody, working or not, pays tax.

                    But you are saying that the NHS encourages the "professional welfare recipient", I would say that the lack of employment, not the NHS, encourages the "professional welfare recipient".

                    And whilst getting wound up about a very small percentage of the unemployed, why do you want to demonize the honest majority?

                  2. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you have any statistical evidence at all that people actually go through the pain and danger of pregnancy and childbirth for benefits in any significant number or would this just be empty vacuous smearing?

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ehhhhm it means if you have a baby both mother and child will receive proper medical care... That's all.

        I don't see how getting medical care can ever increase your earnings...

  2. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    You don't seem to have the slightest clue what medical insurance is all about.  Let me educate you just a bit.

    In it's simplest form, health insurance is a method of calculating your statistical average cost of using the health care system and paying just that amount (plus a small profit to the insurance company).  Should you unexpectedly need more care it will cost no more.  Should you unexpectedly need less care it will cost you no less.  It's primary function is to eliminate the unexpected, bank busting needs that a few people come across against all the odds.  It is not, and never was, intended to pay for day to day costs for ordinary and expected health care bills even though some people buy a policy that pays for that because they are constitutionally unable to save money.  This is not brain surgery to figure out.

    The ACA, on the other hand, doesn't care what your expected, statistically average, cost will be; it is designed to provide a minimum level of care to everyone, plus that same profit to the insurance companies.  So the elderly man will pay for maternity care, not because he is statistically going to need it, but because it that money can be used to reduce the price to someone else.  And the cost of birth control will be added to the policy of the same elderly person that will never use it, just to reduce the price the younger person would otherwise pay.  The ACA is nothing more than a limited form of "share the wealth" and has nothing to do with insurance even though it is being promoted and sold as health care insurance.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But that is the nature of all insurance!

      Your vehicle insurance covers a cost of x million dollars or pounds for personal injury or death to a third party although only a tiny percentage of those insured will ever have to claim that.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No John, it isn't.

        You (at least in the US) pay car insurance based on a great deal of statistical data, data that gives a very good indication of what the average person just like you will pay for from accidents.  They type of car, your past record, the accident record of others your sex or age, the cost to repair your car and even your credit score because people with low scores have more accidents.

        The "insurance" in the ACA does none of that (except age and smoking) - none of the history or expected needs are factored into the cost for anyone.  Instead the needs of the average person that lives in the US is used without regard to individual expectations.  It is not "insurance" in any sense of the word even thought it word is used and it is promoted as such.

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did you write all that to say that this is a version of socialized medicine...?

      Does anyone on the whole planet not know that by now?

  3. profile image0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    I agree that there are those who do enjoy leeching off of welfare. I've come across a few. But there are those who need it and genuinely don't want to use it. The fact is that welfare (at least in Canada) barely pays the bills. My parents were immigrants, for example, and had to be on welfare when I was born. My mother, having a Master's degree, found a job as a scientist about three years later and just recently retired after reaching a salary of $75,000 a year.

    My point is that, yes, people leech, but you can't say that we've created a "welfare society". Welfare wasn't created to help lazy people flourish. It was meant to give people a break while they pick themselves up. Frankly, if you're upset about taxpayers footing the bill for lazy people, take a look at the stellar benefits and retirement packages given to corrupt and apathetic politicians...on our dime.

    If you're going to criticize welfare as being bad because people abuse it, then the same can be said for capitalism. There are CEOs and other executives who cheat on their taxes, embezzle, engage in insider trading, deceive shareholders, etc. Employees engage in dishonest practices to sell products or get ahead. Are we to say that a free market economy is bad because a few unscrupulous people abuse it?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are 100% correct in that there are some people that need the welfare system for a while.  And that that is why it was built.

      It has changed, though.  While Canada may pay only minimum amounts, it isn't that way in the US.  Here, it isn't hard to get double or more of what workers supporting themselves can earn, all for doing nothing.  One of the results is that more and more people used only welfare to live on - a productive job just isn't necessary.

      So yes, welfare needs criticized just as politicians and parts of capitalism does.  It can be improved and should be.

  4. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Though only a man smile I do know the experience is different for every woman. For example, my first born (or rather my partners)  took about two hours from the waters breaking to independence with nothing more than discomfort  whereas my current partners daughter was in (painful) labour for about 48 hours until they gave her a C-section.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Each labor is different, even with the same woman.  Shorter, btw, doesn't necessarily mean less painful either. My shortest (my third) was only three hours long, but the pain was literally beyond description.

      I also don't know what process that psycheskinner is talking about where we forget the pain. I remember every second of it... in detail... very clear detail.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Obviously no experience of labour, but some years ago I shattered my os calsis, I can longer visualise the pain but I still go cold remembering the affect of the pain.

 
working