Sebelius defends maternity coverage for men in Obamacare

In one of the most absurd exchanges during the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s hearing on the rollout of the Obamacare website, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked if a man had ever given birth.

U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., asked Sebelius about men maternity policies for men under the Affordable Care Act.

“Now, as far as the essential health benefits, correct me if I’m wrong,” Ellmers said. “Do men not have to buy maternity coverage?”

Sebelius did not answer the question directly.

“Policies will cover maternity coverage for the young and the healthy—”

Ellmers interjected, “Including men?”

Sebelius said such policies have benefits whether you use them or not, and some benefits include maternity coverage, mental health coverage and domestic violence coverage.

“We’re forcing them to buy things that they will never need,” Ellmers concluded.

Watch the exchange here via CNS News:

[poll id=”132″]

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek has been a political consultant handling public affairs, political campaigns and PAC management for nearly 20 years.
Cheryl Carpenter Klimek


37 thoughts on “Sebelius defends maternity coverage for men in Obamacare

  1. Diane Badget says:

    And birth control, prenatal and maternity care, pediatric care, lactation services, and other “women’s issues” (which is where they hid abortion) for women like me – I’m 62 years old. We have to buy these coverages to pay for folks who DO want it but aren’t going to have to pay as much for it as I do. Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s time to take my birth control pill – I don’t need it, but if I have to pay for it I’m darned if someone else is going to get to take it!

    1. Valerie Parkhurst says:

      Diane, your actually buying it for the Illegals that are exempt from “purchasing” coverage but but not exempt from still using public hospitals to deliver their babies. Nothing has changed where that is concerned.

      1. Diane Badget says:

        That’s a big part of it, Valerie, and I’m also paying it for lots of others! This plan counts on my dollars to make up for what the government is spending to subisize the much lower premium that others qualify for. It’s nothing more than what Barney Madoff went to prison for – a giant Ponzi scheme – but far more dangerous because it tampers with our precious health.
        I just learned from a friend whose little one has EB, a horrible disease where the skin isn’t held together with connective tissue, that she is losing her home health care nurse because it will no longer be covered by her Medicaid since his condition is chronic. So this law lets the government get rid of the three groups of people who are the biggest drain on the nation – the chronically ill, the unwanted unborn, and those of us who are elderly. And I have to buy unwanted coverage to help them get by with what amounts to genocide.

  2. Laura Hague Mock says:

    Little late to let the ACA play out without interference. The GOP has already wasted millions of tax dollars trying to kill a law that they say is a train wreck. If so, why didn’t they butt out and let it fail? Because they are afraid it will work and the black guy in the WH will get the credit. Somewhat screwy that hearings about why the website is not working called by the party who has been trying to destroy it for three years…

    1. Matt Dunkle says:

      Laura, Have YOU signed up for Obummer-care yet???

      1. john says:

        It’s impossible to “sign up for Obamacare”
        When it comes to the healthcare laws, Republicans have no Idea what they are talking about.

    2. Ray Rittenhouse says:

      You either live in La-La land or just a compete Moron to believe this will ever work…Letting it fail is one option and taking down Millions with it and starting over again and Blowing Billions More??Either way people are screwed and because this Moron has an Idea that breaking the Backs of Americans will make it easier to control them…You can have HIM and his Idea’s,But I rather be Free with Choice’s…Not being Muslim and loose my Freedom’s….

    3. Roger says:

      They have fought it because they knew it was a disaster. Your letting it play out theory will cause great harm to tens of millions of people… including myself.

    4. joe cartwright says:

      The only credit Obama is going to get, is that he is a BIG LIAR !!!

      1. Laura Hague Mock says:

        Amazing that most of you who replied to my post can’t spell or write a complete sentence. I suggest that the ones who can’t tell the difference between lose and loose, or your and you’re ask for a dictionary for Xmas. I have never seen so many comments filled with misinformation. In the first place the ACA was modeled after Romneycare that is working quite well in Massachusetts. It was also based on a plan that the Heritage Foundation came up with, so it is originally a GOP idea. Since it has been a law, it has been tweaked 19 times all at the request of the GOP. The law is nothing like a Ponzi scheme, it works the same way as Medicare, the young and healthy help to balance out the old and sick. When Social Security and Medicare were introduced they has rocky starts as well. The only difference btwn the ACA and the one in Massachusetts is that Romney’s was passed with bipartisan support. The other party was not trying to destroy it because they didn’t want Romney to have the credit, unlike the ACA. Someone asked if I signed up and the answer is no because I don’t need it. However, there are many people who have been unable to get insurance for many varied reasons. Either they couldn’t afford it or couldn’t get it because of pre-existing conditions. I have a relative whose household income is around $200k and she could not get insurance because she had cancer and lost her job. The ACA is not for the poor, they qualify for Medicaid or SSI. It is for the many in the middle class who need it. Most of the insured people are insured through their employment. You would think that the GOP/teapers who profess personal responsibility would embrace this law that requires everyone to have health insurance. People who don’t have it cost the taxpayers and the insured a lot of money to make up for the bills they can’t pay. So why are you so against 30 million of your fellow Americans having healthcare? Sounds like most of you could use a dose of compassion and empathy….

        1. Kenneth Clark says:

          Ms. Mock,
          Appropriate name, I must say…
          First it is spelled Christmas, not Xmas. Maybe a dictionary would do you some good as well for spelling. You, as all other Liberal Progressives do, have a real penchant in pointing out others mistakes to attempt to hide your own. Such as the spelling and grammar comments.

          Your RomneyCare Model is a farce as it is about to become a single payer system as the costs of it have escalated out of control. ObamaCare hasn’t even lifted from the ground yet and has already cost we the tax payer Billions of dollars that our Government is attempting to extort from us as did the Chicago Gangsters during Prohibition.

          Let me give to you a personal story as well, if I may. My eldest son was born with Congenital Heart Disease. He was diagnosed on his very first follow up visit after birth. We had been with the same insurance company for ten years. When we filed the first claim, they dropped us like a hot potato. By the time he was two he had developed another problem as the result of the ones he was born with and required Open Heart Surgery. Two surgeries later, in the same day, I was presented with a bill for almost $96,000.00. I had no insurance and could not get insurance on him. But guess what, I paid every dime of that bill within 3 years. Shortly after I paid that off, he required another surgery due to the development of yet another cardiac problem. Afterwards I was presented with a bill for over 126,000. I paid every dime of it off. Yes, we could have had nicer things with the money spent on his surgeries. But as a result, the best thing in the world happened, I had my son over things. I now have a beautiful Granddaughter with a Grandson on the way.
          Insurance did not help my son. His father did which is MY job and I like my job.

          Now as for ObamaCare. You tout it as if its the best thing since sliced bread yet you “Don’t Need It”. How can you with a straight face tout something you know nothing of? If you want to be the bastion of ObamaCare, drop your insurance before they drop you and join in all of the Obama fun. Until then you have nothing to lend to the conversation because of the lack of experience that you have proven.

          1. Laura Hague Mock says:

            Mr. Clark
            You made some incorrect assumptions about me just because I think that the ACA, despite it’s many initial problems, is a good thing. You referred to me as a Liberal Progressive, which I suppose is better than some of the things I have been called on Conservative sites Actually, I am a registered Republican who does not always vote GOP. I have no idea why you feel that I have no right to talk about the ACA just because I am on Medicare and don’t need it. It appears that most of the people who have commented on this post don’t need it either, including you. I am a retired social worker which might explain my empathy for others who are not as fortunate as the rest of us. You have every right to have an opinion on the new healthcare law, but so do I. I happen to believe that equal access to health care and the ability to buy health insurance at a reasonable rate, should be a right in this wealthy country. If you truly paid all of your son’s high medical bills in such a short period, more power to you. You must have had a very high income in order to accomplish that. However, a large number of bankruptcies filed in the past few years are attributed to medical bills. People without insurance (and not just illegal immigrants) tend to not be able to pay large healthcare costs which then get passed to the rest of us. Some people are whining because all are now required to carry health insurance as if this is a new concept. We are required to carry car insurance, buy pet licenses, building permits, etc. In my state, we are required to have our vehicles inspected. All of these government requirements carry penalties for noncompliance. The ACA is no different.
            Incidentally, my meltdown over spelling and grammar mistakes was the result of many days of trying to decipher GOP/Tea Party comments that were frustratingly illegible. It just happens to be one of my pet peeves when people are unable to communicate on a grade school level. BTW, Xmas is a perfectly reasonable abbreviation for Christmas. In addition, Mock is a fairly common Pennsylvania Dutch name which I inherited from my husband. Making fun of someone’s name is such an adult thing…you should be so proud!

          2. Kenneth Clark says:

            “Some people are whining because all are now required to carry health insurance as if this is a new concept. We are required to carry car insurance, buy pet licenses, building permits, etc. In my state, we are
            required to have our vehicles inspected. All of these government requirements carry penalties for noncompliance.”

            All of these that you mentioned are nothing more than Taxes. The big difference between, say auto insurance is that if you are a good driver, you get discounts. You also have a choice. ObamaCare takes away choice (Freedom) and penalizes the healthy (Higher Premiums).

            ” I have no idea why you feel that I have no right to talk about the ACA just because I am on Medicare and don’t need it.”

            I had no idea as to why you didn’t need ObamaCare. You should feel fortunate not to have to be forced into this farce to raise taxes on the backs of those whom cant even find a job in this economy.

            “I happen to believe that equal access to health care and the ability
            to buy health insurance at a reasonable rate, should be a right in this
            wealthy country.”

            Everyone did have equal access and choice to health insurance (freedom). That freedom has now been removed. The wealth of hard working people, whom already bear the majority of the burden of those whom will not work, should not be taken away simply because the ones that want will not work to get.

            ” It appears that most of the people who have commented on this post don’t need it either, including you.”

            It seems that you too are guilty of assumption. I will be unemployed starting this Thursday along with 42 of my long time co-workers due to our plant being shut down. I am fortunate, I am the very last to go. ObamaCare was cited in the announcement of the Shut Down in August. Now, 42 families in a city of 3200 people are without an income. ObamaCare wasn’t the sole reason but was a substantial part of the decision.
            However, I simply refuse to be forced by the very people that are paid from my taxes, to purchase anything. They do not know what is best for me nor do they have the right to force me. If I do not purchase they penalize with a fine, which is the same extortion tactics used by the Chicago mob.

            ” If you truly paid all of your son’s high medical bills in such a short
            period, more power to you. You must have had a very high income in order
            to accomplish that.”

            Ms. Mock, I personally paid every dime of my son’s medical bills. I worked 16 to 18 hrs a day six to seven days a week and earned a six figure income in order to pay what I owed for my son. Yes, it was exhausting and took a toll on me and my family, but I did what was necessary to pay my debt. Your questioning statement is offensive and unappreciated.

            “Making fun of someone’s name is such an adult thing…you should be so proud!”

            I offer my sincere apology for this. It was not the proper thing to do.

          3. Laura Hague Mock says:

            Mr. Clark.
            I appreciate your apology. However,
            I have absolutely no intentions of addressing every one of your remarks or correcting all of your misinformation. I believe you misinterpreted my remarks about your paying off your son’s medical bills. Perhaps, that is my fault for the way I expressed myself but it was not my intention to demean your efforts. I think it is admirable that you did so but I also feel that you had to have an above average income to accomplish it in such a short time. I am sorry if I seemed offensive.
            None of the examples I gave of services we are forced to buy, by the government, are taxes. The ACA is very similar to Medicare which has been around since the 60’s, in that the young and healthy pay for the sick and old. You stated that Obamacare takes away choices. If you receive your insurance through your employer, you have the choice to check out the exchanges and see if you can get a better rate and coverage. Most of the exchanges have many companies and policies to choose from which actually increases your choices. You are absolutely misinformed if you think that prior to the new law, every one had equal access to medical insurance. Prior to my eligibility for Medicare, I had no health coverage because no one would cover me because of pre-existing conditions. It had nothing to do with ability to pay, but I am not going to mention my income as you did. My sister who lives in another state, was diagnosed with cancer two wks before she lost her job. She was able to get insurance at $900 mo. for 15 months under Cobra. Even though her state has a pool for the uninsured, she was unable to get any insurance until the ACA. Her problem was not ability to pay either, but access.
            I found it offensive that you stated the often quoted Conservative remark that
            “those who want will not work” especially in this economy. In the first place, the ACA is not for the poor, they qualify for Medicaid or SSI. It is for the working poor who did not have the ability to feed their families and pay high health insurance premiums. It is for people who, regardless of their incomes or age group, have been turned down because of pre-existing conditions. the companies can no longer drop us because we got sick and cost them too much money. The caps are gone. They can no longer charge women or elderly more. The insurance companies can no longer do all those things and more while making obscene profits and high bonuses. They now must show that 85% of their premiums are spent on healthcare for their policy holders. If they don’t, they must refund the difference to them. These problems may not have affected you personally, but they have affected a majority of Americans in some way. I am sorry that you have lost your job but I truly doubt if it was because of the advent of the ACA. It sounds like if you are unable to find another job immediately, you will have to go on Cobra to retain health insurance, which only lasts for 15 months. After that if you are still unemployed, you will be glad for Obamacare, because, without it, if you have even minor health issues, it is highly possible that you would have been unable to get insurance.

          4. john says:

            We need more republicans like you. The best part of a two party system is Compromise. If we had more of it, we would be in a better place. The healthcare exchanges would be fully operational, appropriation requests may have been met, states would set up their own exchanges, which would have lifted the enormous burden from the Federal government, and medicaid would be expanded in 25+ states .
            but instead we have crybabies in congress, pouting with their arms folded, while shutting down the government over a healthcare law that they “all the sudden” do not agree with.. even know their own party invented the individual mandate.

          5. john says:

            The history of healthcare in the US

            In 1993 Bill Clinton was in favor of an employer mandate.”Republicans supported the individual mandate.

            “To combat President Clinton’s proposal, a large group of Republican senators, including the minority leader at the time, Bob Dole, and several who are still in office, proposed a bill that would have required individuals, and not employers, to buy insurance.”

            After Mr. Clinton’s health care proposal died, Democrats began searching for more politically palatable solutions.

            But there was still little Democratic support for an individual mandate, but officials, centrist policy groups and even liberal research organizations slowly warmed to the idea.

            When Senator John Edwards sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, he proposed an insurance mandate for children, but not adults. The politics of the mandate really began to change when Massachusetts enacted its health care law. That effort united Mr. Romney, a Republican, with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a liberal stalwart who got involved in part to protect the state’s share of federal Medicaid money, and Democratic lawmakers on Beacon Hill. All wound up supporting a plan with an individual mandate.

            “Democrats, based on the Massachusetts experience, became much more comfortable with the idea of an individual mandate,”

            “The irony of a Republican idea being the source of Republican opposition”

            In 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.

            The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee (and supported by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond) as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a “universal coverage” requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based ‘purchasing groups.

            At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate.

            In 2006, an insurance expansion bill was enacted at the state level in Massachusetts. The bill contained both an individual health insurance mandate and an insurance exchange. Republican Governor Mitt Romney signed it into law with strong bipartisan support.

            Senator Jim DeMint praised Romney’s ability to “take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured.” Romney himself said of the individual mandate: “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation.”

            In 2007, a year after the Massachusetts reform, Republican Senator Bob Bennett and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden introduced the Healthy Americans Act, which also featured an individual mandate and state-based regulated insurance markets called “State Health Help Agencies”.The bill attracted bipartisan support but died in committee; however, many of the sponsors and co-sponsors remained in Congress during the 2008 healthcare debate.

            By 2008 many Democrats were considering using this approach as the basis for comprehensive, national healthcare reform. Experts have pointed out that the legislation that eventually emerged from Congress in 2009 and 2010 bears many similarities to the 2007 bill and that it was deliberately patterned after Romney’s state healthcare plan.[64] Jonathan Gruber, a key architect of the Massachusetts reform who advised the Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns on their healthcare proposals, served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and helped Congress draft the Affordable Heathcare Act that we know today.

        2. Diane Badget says:

          I, too, have been trying to destroy this law for 3 years and I don’t belong to any party. Not all of the “tweaks” were GOP ideas. Besides, isn’t the big argument that the GOP never HAD any ideas? That’s what they kept trying to tell us as they locked the Republicans out of the meeting rooms during Obamacare debates.

          I watched the amendment process when the Democrats finally figured out that they’d better be a lot more transparent than they had been, so they televised a Finance Committee’s mark up session. I heard and saw Senator Max Baucus repeat, every time a Republican tried to introduce an amendment, “That is not germane.” He has since referred to Obamacare as a “train wreck”, despite the fact that he helped engineer it, and he is not running for re-election in Montana because of it. No ideas from the Republicans? How about Senator Mike Enzi’s 10 Steps for Health Care? You can find them on his web site and they were written BEFORE Obamacare.

          As for the “tweaks”, well, Ms. Sebelius and HHS were given unprecedented powers in the law, so one of those “tweaks” was to change what was “acceptable” in a health insurance policy so that policies which would have been grandfathered in, as promised, suddenly became “illegal.” Another “tweak” was ordered by the President so that folks wouldn’t get sticker shock when they looked at the premiums and plans. To achieve that end, he ordered that the site be changed so that people would have to open an account and fill out an application first. That has since been changed.

          Mr. Romney said during his campaign that it would be virtually impossible to do on a national scale what the Massachusetts program accomplished, and he also made it clear that his plan was not without its problems.
          Have you not seen reports that most people signing up for health insurance are opting for Medicaid? Have you ever been on Medicaid? I have a family member who has needed it, and believe me if you had used it you would not be extolling its virtues. Just who do you think is going to pay for all that cut-rate or free medical coverage? I’ll tell you – my grandchildren will be paying for it, and my brand new great grandson will as well. I will be paying for it by being forced to buy a policy which contains things I don’t need. This grandmother’s days of needing birth control and maternity care are long gone, but I have to buy it in order to provide it to someone else.

          I have compassion and empathy for my fellow man. I just don’t believe I’m doing anyone a favor by constantly reminding them that they’re poor, and by enacting programs designed to keep them that way. By doing that, the Democrats are always assured of a population of victims who will vote for them regardless of how much it hurts the country as a whole. Americans are the most generous people on the planet, but they do their most unselfish giving when it comes from their hearts, not from legislation. I’m also a little tired of being clobbered over the head with accusations of being cold-hearted when I declare that I don’t owe anyone free anything. I worked hard all my life,and I’d rather leave what little I’ve accumulated to my beloved grandchildren instead of to someone who not only doesn’t appreciate it, but demands it.

          Many of those unpaid ER bills you complain about are run up by illegal immigrants who are, coincidentally, exempt from Obamacare and the penalties for not having it. Do you seriously think that will stop because we have been forced to buy health insurance? The best summation I’ve heard on Obamacare was from a woman who said, “Only in Obama’s America can the uninsured get insurance by un-insuring the insured.” I need to look that post up again and be sure to credit her with it. Oh, and I’m not even going to dignify your “black guy in the WH” remark with a response.

          With all due respect, Ms. Mock, I am a professional writer. I would therefore suggest that before you criticize others with your superior knowledge of the English language, you learn how to read what is being written instead of worrying about the way it’s written. The difference between you and me is that I’d rather overlook some spelling and grammatical errors by someone with a valid point of view than judge their intelligence and patriotism by a few typos and mistakes. Why can’t most Democrats argue the policies and points without resorting to name calling and insults?

          1. Laura Hague Mock says:

            Diane Badget
            My meltdown over the misspelled words and poor grammar were a result of days spent trying to decipher GOP/Tea Party remarks that were virtually illegible. It does amaze me that there are so many people who profess to be either professional writers or PHD holders on the conservative sites and can’t write a sentence on a grade school level. I don’t know what websites you haunt, but this Republican would disagree with your assessment that the Democrats resort to name calling and insults. In my experience, it is coming much more frequently from the GOP/Tea Party members. BTW, perhaps you need to reread my comments, I have never called anyone unpatriotic for any reason.
            Unfortunately, I have been called that many times by Conservatives because I don’t agree with them.

          2. Diane Badget says:

            I apologize. I should not have painted all Democrats with the same brush. Perhaps, like your confession of overreaction to grammar and spelling, I’ve grown so tired of being bashed that I overreacted to what I read in your post as insulting. However, your post did distinctly criticize those of us who know this plan won’t work and will bankrupt this nation as needing “a dose of compassion and empathy”, implying that because we see the damage this law will cause we are heartless and cruel. As I said, I’m just about done with being beaten over the head by folks who seem to think the best way to help those who have less than some of us do is to keep them impoverished and feeling like victims. I believe that. I also notice that you did not address a single point about Obamacare that I outlined – it was all personal.
            I re-read what I wrote. I didn’t see any references to you calling anyone “unpatriotic” so I don’t see the need to defend it.
            I firmly stand by the rest of my post. You told me about one person’s experience, now let me return the favor.
            In my family, pre-existing conditions are nothing new. My son has diabetes, his wife has epilepsy. For 11 years they tried to have a child, but my daughter-in-law can only take one medication to control her seizures and that caused problems. Finally their first (and they thought only) baby was born, and she’s wonderful! She’s mildly autistic and was born missing two ribs and with slightly asymmetrical hips, but she’s doing so well that it’s hard to see any problems with her. She’s doing great in school (regular classroom, no special needs) and is happy and well adjusted. Then surprise! When she was 5 along came her baby sister. The seizure medication caused Spina Bifida in the baby, but she’s amazing! By a year old she could outmaneuver any of us – and she did it from her tiny little wheelchair. So in one family we have diabetes, epilepsy, some physical and high functioning autism in one child and Spina Bifida in their second.
            My middle daughter has had ovarian and uterine cancer, and in 2007 at the ripe old age of 35 had a double mastectomy. Her daughter has Marfan Syndrome.
            My husband has Sarcoidosis and Pernicious Anemia. I have inherited heart issues from my mom. So you see, if any family in the world should welcome insurance which can’t deny for preconditions it should be mine. Not so. We know that this is nothing more than a super expensive bandaid, and the real problems are still oozing under it. None of my kid can afford the exchanges – especially here in Wyoming where the rates are among the 3rd highest in the nation and the cheapest plan has a deductible of more than my daughter’s now part time job pays her in a year. We know that something needs to be done, but we all firmly believe that this is not the plan!!! What good is living to a ripe old age if you spend that lifetime providing someone else with an abortion, birth control, or lactation assistance and never have a dime leftover to enjoy your family?

          3. Laura Hague Mock says:

            The reason I did not address any of your points about the ACA is frankly, I am tired of doing so. You are one of about ten people who have jumped me just on this website. In the past week, I have had similar situations occur on other sites as well as on my personal facebook page. I have tried to explain myself in reply to all those people, but I am truly burnt out. We all know that the ACA is not a perfect law and that it has had a less than successful start especially with the website. However, there are some wonderful aspects of it. You mentioned pre-existing conditions being a personal problem. I am sorry that your family has had so many medical problems but I guess, despite your explanation, I don’t understand why you would not welcome at least that aspect of the law. As to my accusation of people not having empathy, I have to say that as a former social worker, I don’t understand why many people blame the poor, unemployed, and sick for their problems. It is especially hard to understand when we are just coming out of a huge recession. There is a lot of misinformation in the comments here, which is not surprising considering that the GOP has bragged that they have spent millions spreading it around. A lot of people have no idea as to the basic mechanics of the law and refuse to do any research outside of their favorite Conservative sites. BTW I am a Republican who does not like the direction that the party has taken.

          4. Diane Badget says:

            With all due respect – “a lot of people have no idea as to the basic mechanics of the law.”? In case it missed the radar, Congress couldn’t even be bothered to read it. When asked, Democrat John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said, “I love these members. The get up and say, ‘Read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s 1000 pages and you don’t have 2 days and 2 lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?’ Then Ms. Pelosi made her famous, “We’ll have to pass it to know what’s in it.” But as citizens, the burden to obey the laws of the land is on us, and ignorance of the law is supposedly no excuse.

            When the Democrats were afraid they wouldn’t get the votes they needed to pass it, they considered a little known stunt called “Deem and Pass.” I quote:

            “It’s one more ploy. The reconciliation package contains the changes and amendments that President Obama put into the Senate bill on Health Care. Nancy Pelosi has said that she is now looking into the possibility of using a process known as “deem and pass.” It has been used before, but never for anything this massive and expensive.”

            ” ‘It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” she said Monday. ‘But I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.’ ”

            “The House will vote on the reconciliation package as a ‘rule vote’. They want us to believe that they they are voting on a reconciliation rule and on the more palatable fixes to the bill, not the reform bill itself. There is a line in that package which says that as soon as these changes pass, the bill which they affect is automatically assumed to have been previously passed. When the votes are tallied and if the reconciliation package passed and is signed by the president, the health care bill was passed retroactively. Just how dumb do they think Americans are?”

            The basic mechanics of the law are not difficult – if 62 year old women, and men of any age, don’t have coverage for birth control, pregnancy and maternity care, lactation support, and pediatric dental care, they are not considered good enough and companies who issued policies that people chose based on the coverages they wanted will have to cancel those policies. Some companies are offering replacements, but they come at a far higher premium because of all the people who won’t be paying, or will be paying very little, into the insurance pool. And those people who live at or below the poverty level won’t be helped because there is a section in the bill which forces hospitals which once offered charity care, in effect, to back off. IRC Section (r) was amended in June of 2012 – two years AFTER the bill was passed into law – so do some research on IRC Section (r)(3).

            I do plenty of research, and I research on any site I can find that has NO political agenda whenever I can find them. I also utilize the library and Thomas’ Official Congressional Record. I will not put anything in columns that I can’t back up and I’m an “equal opportunity basher” – taking on both Republicans and Democrats.

            And a stupid, expensive law which is nothing more than a stepping stone to a single payer system, which will bankrupt this country, is not the right law for this country – not now, not ever.

          5. Laura Hague Mock says:

            Diane Badget
            Obviously, I am aware that like most of the bills our government churns out, the ACA is a complicated law. I don’t think it is necessary to read the entire law, although I have, in order to understand the basics of how it works. The government website does a pretty good job of explaining the basic mechanics of it. BTW how the law works and how to obtain coverage are not partisan opinions. I too read both sides of issues and tend to lean toward non partisan sites. However, most people are so confused by the daily diet of bs that the Conservative media cranks out about this law, that they have no clue as to the basics. I read your somewhat long explanation as to how it became a law and who did or didn’t vote for it. However, it really is a moot point as it is the law now. It is somewhat ludicrous to accuse the Dems of pulling something to get it passed in the present climate of the GOP’s antics. You are complaining that the ACA will cost the country too much but yet you mention nothing about the GOP/Tea Party WASTING millions in 48 futile attempts to overturn an existing law not to mention, the millions wasted in their temper tantrum of shutting down the gov’t over Obamacare. At least the money spent for the ACA will be used to provide access for all to obtain reasonably priced health insurance and not just flushed down the toilet. A good example of many people being misinformed, is the people who tell you they hate Obamacare, but when told of some of the benefits to all that the ACA contains..they love it. They hate Obama so much that when the law is referred to in its’ proper name ACA , they think that they are two different laws.

          6. Kenneth Clark says:

            Ms. Mock,
            At the risk of sounding unsympathetic to the uninsured, if you really believe in the ACA as much as you state in your posts, drop the premium free Medicare and purchase a plan on the exchange.

          7. Laura Hague Mock says:

            Mr. Clark
            Your previous reply is a good example of not having your facts straight. You need to do some research on Medicare and Medicaid and their differences. In the first place, Medicare is not premium free. It has several parts, Part A covers hospitalization, Part B covers doctors, medical supplies etc., Part C is Advantage plans sold by private insurance providers that cover all aspects of the parts and more benefits. Part D is for prescription drugs. In addition, most people buy an additional plan (medigap) to cover the 20% that Medicare does not pay. Now as to the costs of each part: Part A can be premium free for most people, unless they have a higher income. Part B costs everyone $107 a month, Part C’s premium includes all the part’s costs plus additional to cover medigap and other benefits. Part D is also not free and is based on income but is usually under $100. Medigap varies depending on the insurance co rates, but can be anywhere from $200 to $500 a month. It is also possible to have to pay penalties on top of these premiums if one did not accept Medicare when eligible of 10% per year. Medicaid is for the poor and for the most part, it is premium free. So, Mr Clark, you can see that your statement that I should drop my free Medicare and sign up for the ACA was quite flawed. Moreover, it is quite obvious that you did not even know that people who are eligible for Medicare are not eligible for the ACA.

        3. Valerie Parkhurst says:

          In as much as your oblivious to it Laura, you make us (on the right) arguments for us, prefaced by a good dose of playing spelling police. If indeed the ACA was modeled after Romneycare, one would have to wonder why those in charge of it couldnt follow a template that was already in play? Then after contemplating that, one would have to deduce that this President and this administration couldnt walk a straight line if it was painted on the ground for them.

          1. Laura Hague Mock says:

            I have no idea what you are trying to convey in your first sentence other than you have accused me of playing spelling police. BTW since you bring it up, your spelling was adequate but you mixed up your and you’re. I understood what you meant when you said that the Dems should have been able to follow an existing template when setting up this law. However, Romneycare was done on a much smaller scale and as I mentioned in an earlier post, was lucky enough to have bipartisan support. As you know that is not the case with the ACA. When the healthcare plan was introduced in Massachusetts, they had initial difficulties too. Medicare and SS were extremely bumpy when started and they did not have the other party spending millions to spread misinformation about it. It is my opinion that in a few years when the dust settles, people will like this law.

          2. Valerie Parkhurst says:

            If I may be so bold Laura, can I ask? As a defender of the ACA when will you determine that the ACA might not be everything it promised and is failing on an epic level? When the IRS “fines” those who have asked for exemptions? When a special needs child is denied life saving treatment? Perhaps when the “young and healthy” retaliate against cost of this coverage due to an unhealthy economic job market? Your comment “in a few years when the dust settles” is very open-ended and quite frankly isnt a pursuasive argument for those like me who sit on the other side. How much “mis-information” is it going to take for you to realize that perhaps this monstrosity has been designed and poorly implemented with a less that stellar cast of incompetent characters?

          3. Laura Hague Mock says:

            I could ask you the same questions from the other point of view. When are you going to accept that there are some aspects of the ACA that were greatly needed? The law is not perfect, but so few of them are. Personally, I don’t think that it has done enough in terms of addressing the high costs of medical care and drugs. I would have preferred a single payer plan similar to what the other industrialized nations have. After saying that I am certain that someone here will start calling me un-American or a Socialist because it has occurred on other sites. As to your statement that I should admit that the ACA is not providing what was promised and that it is a failure on an epic level. Probably never, any more than you are going to admit that it has provided many things that were promised. Children can now stay on their parent’s policies until age 26. Insurance companies can no longer turn down people based on pre-existing conditions, or charge rates based on gender, health condition or age. They can no longer drop policyholders when they become ill because it is costing them too much money. Insurance companies must now prove that 85% of their premiums taken in are spent on providing healthcare instead of obscene bonuses for their upper management. If not, they must refund the difference to the policyholder. There are many more positive changes that the ACA provides. Your comment about a special needs child not getting treatment under the law is not valid. In the first place, before the law, people had less problems with obtaining treatment and more problems with being able to pay for it. As to the young and healthy being forced to pay for the old and sick being so horrendous, Medicare works the same way and has been around since the sixties. The “fine” for not participating is $95 this year and is not out of pocket, but is handled on your income tax form. People who choose not to get insurance will continue to cost the taxpayers and policyholders more money. which has been the status quo without the law. Everyone will agree that the introduction of the ACA has been rocky, especially the website, but it has not kept some people from signing up and there are several months left to do so. It appears that most of the people who dislike Obamacare do not need it at this point. Unfortunately, good health is not an infinite situation. It may take a catastrophic illness affecting them or a family member before they fully appreciate the new Healthcare law. I still stand by my statement that in a few years, when all the kinks have been worked out, most Americans will be happy with this attempt to provide everyone with health insurance and to lessen health care costs.

        4. Sandra Romero says:

          First: “The ACA is not for the poor, they qualify for Medicaid or SSI. It is for the many in the middle class who need it. Most of the insured people are insured through their employment. ” Not true. My sister is one of the “poor” but she does not qualify for Medicaid or SSI, even though she has been certified as disabled by Social Security. She will be forced to buy Obamacare or pay the fine, NEITHER OF WHICH SHE CAN AFFORD.

          Second: “People who don’t have it cost the taxpayers and the insured a lot of money to make up for the bills they can’t pay. So why are you so against 30 million of your fellow Americans having healthcare? Sounds like most of you could use a dose of compassion and empathy….” If the hospitals were not mandated to provide care to anyone, regardless of ability to pay, PEOPLE WHO DON’T HAVE IT WOULD NOT COST THE TAXPAYERS AND THE INSURED ALOT OF MONEY TO MAKE UP FOR THE BILLS THEY CAN’T PAY” I am not against 30 million of my fellow Americans having healthcare, I AM AGAINST SOME NUMBER OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS LOSING THEIR CURRENT POLICIES AND/OR BEING FORCED TO BUY OBAMACARE WHEN THEY DO NOT WANT IT OR CAN’T AFFORD IT. I do not need a dose of compassion and empathy BUT YOU SURELY NEED A DOSE OF REALITY AND COMMON SENSE!

          1. Laura Hague Mock says:

            First of all, I am tired of arguing the same points with people who are truly misinformed. You mention your sister who is on SS disability being too poor to buy insurance and not qualifying for Medicaid or SSI. If she is on SSD, she will be eligible for Medicare at some point. When someone is disabled, they do not have to be of retirement age to qualify. However, even Medicare is not free. She will be required to pay premiums for some aspects of it. Do some research on the subject. Incidentally, people who qualify for Medicare are not eligible to apply for the ACA. I am not exactly sure which side you are on in this debate. If your sister is truly low middle income, she should qualify for the subsidies that help to defray the premium cost. If she lives in a Republican governed state, as I do, it is possible that because her state did not take the Medicaid expansion, that her rates may be higher.
            The reason why I mentioned that people who do not have insurance costing the rest of us when they don’t pay is not because I have a problem with it. If you scroll back to my other posts, I merely mentioned it because with the GOP’s slogan of personal responsibility, you would think they would love this law that requires every one to have insurance. As to my comments about some people having no empathy or compassion for others, I mentioned that because half of our society blames the people who need help for their difficulties. The poor, sick, old, and unemployed must have done something to be in their predicament. Very few seem to be able to relate until it happens to them. That, of course, is just how I see it as a former social worker. BTW I have plenty of empathy, reality and common sense, but thanks for caring.

    5. ryan says:

      huh spend millions to stop a train wreck that will cost billions sounds like a good idea to me

      1. Laura Hague Mock says:

        It is fascinating that most Conservatives, who whine constantly about being the fiscally responsible party who is against excessive government spending,yet have no problem when they are doing the overspending. The GOP/Teaparty has recently flushed millions of tax dollars down the toilet. AND don’t get me started on the trillions spent on two unfunded wars and an unfunded prescription addition to Medicare (part D). All these examples of overspending are brought to we taxpayers from George W’s administration and the fiscally responsible party….

  3. Patricia Vallejo Mueller says:

    They should have left this to the states, they know their needs better than the federal government. They have now made a big mess to insure 5-15% of the population (numbers depends on who is reporting) for the whole populous of the United States. What sense does this make. And after the law is pass they made changes to tweak it. The GOP would have been violating the very thing they stand for if they didn’t try and continue to get rid of the ACA.

  4. Elden Morris says:

    Maternity coverage? I will never need it nor will my wife. My wife and I are 60. I had a vasectomy 30 years ago and she had a tubal ligation around the same time. She has also gone through menopause. Why do I have to pay for this. These jack asses in DC need to be tossed out on their ears.

    1. Alondra says:

      Oh man, where are you living?
      Who cares that you “had a vasectomy 30 years ago”?
      O’barry definitely doesn’t care, nor Sebelius.
      But do not worry. You will pay just “for the young and the healthy”. Not so bad, man. Do not complain.

  5. RonaldoFearsEboue . says:

    People google search ‘gynocentrism’

    It’s the system we are living under and that is the confiscation of wealth from men to women. That may sound all well and good but men pay 70% of all taxes, women control 65% of the wealth (yes really) and women take more out of the system.

    You are being robbed blind to pay for ‘feminism’.

    1. Alondra says:

      Ronaldo, what are you doing here with the French name. We have enough our own fearmongers.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts