Misogynist GOP Healthcare Plan

NC's own, Senator Richard Burr, is working on the health plan Republicans plan to propose as a replacement for Obamacare. One of the things setting the two plans apart is maternity coverage: Obamacare requires it, the Burr plan does not. Evidently, Senator Burr doesn't think health insurance needs to cover maternity care, even though about 54% of registered voters in North Carolina are women.

Yes, there are women who don't plan to have children, but do sometimes find themselves in unexpected need of an ob/gyn. And in the past, anyone who had a group insurance plan through their employer, helped pay for this coverage for women also under the plan, so the argument that men should not pay for this doesn't hold up. (Not to mention that as it takes a man to make a pregnancy, he should be bearing some of the cost of coverage for the woman who would bear the child.)

Everyone knows by now that women who seek medical care early in their pregnancies are more likely to have healthier babies. And

a full 25 percent of all U.S. hospitalizations are a consequence of pregnancy and childbirth, according to an analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Before Obamacare,

According to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), just 12 percent of plans on the market offered coverage for pregnancy-related care.


And giving birth without any type of insurance coverage (was) financially impossible for most women; childbirth in the United States costs more than anywhere else in the world.

(http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/02/05/3619623/gop-obamacare-alternative-maternity/)

Why is it that the GOP has a problem with coverage for maternity care?? They don't want women to have abortions, so one would think they would be all in favor of making certain that all women got this vital medical help. Pre-Obamacare, insurers could refuse to supply coverage to women who had had a Cesarean delivery-- She would probably need to have a Caesarean for any future pregnancy, costing the insurer more money. A woman who became pregnant without maternity insurance could not get coverage because her pregnancy was a 'pre-existing condition!' No, these were not the Good Old Days. Quite the contrary.

Doesn't maternity coverage support marriage? Isn't requiring maternity coverage in insurance a way to support the concept of family? How can the GOP be against that!

Tags: 

Comments