Paying for breeders again

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-lawmaker-asks-why-men-131906645.html

We should ALLLLLL pay for mooternity care

Like every stupid thing that goes viral, it's a quick sound bite that doesn't delve too much into the issue. It's just an opportunity.

I suspect the real argument here is that Obamacare did not permit differentiation among ages and genders in the premiums, as is commonly done with car insurance, for example.

I myself would have no problem with a higher premium for a woman of childbearing age who elects to carry maternity coverage. (Provided a woman could opt out of maternity coverage altogether, or receive discounted insurance if she were sterilized.) I think that's the fair way to do it....you pay based on what you are going to use. But this would never survive in a million years, thanks to our pronatalist country. Obamacare was drafted by Congress, and Congress wants to spread the costs of breeding to everyone else.

Lawmakers could do one simple thing that would go a long way toward affordable care: pass a law that if you are going to be a hospital or an insurance company, you must be a non-profit entity. But I digress.

Most of the dipshits who want the benefits are idiots who can't do math. They don't understand that the only people who will truly win on this deal and not end up paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits are the small margin group of quiverful types. Because the government will have to hire people to make laws and regulations regarding mooternity leave, plus overseers of the program, run of the mill paper pushers, building costs, etc. so a good amount of the funds everyone pays in would be diverted from the moos. And everyone will get stuck paying a tax every year when they are long past a "childbearing" age. Just simplify and save your own damned money, just like they do for a vacation, house or car! Otherwise you're going to lose in the long run, just too stupid to figure this out.

It is a slippery slope. The state is better than the home and knows better how to delegate your salary. If you're in congress you can vote on your own raise and only have to serve 2 terms to receive retirement benefits - try finding that bonus in any other line of work! But to stay in congress you have to push bullshit like this to keep the famblee valeews people happy.

Ceausescu also convinced Romania the state is better than the home and to pay down debt while making abortion illegal and paying women for having lots of kids. Homeless orphans were everywhere. Plus rationing everything. But, the debt was paid!

Quote
bell_flower
Like every stupid thing that goes viral, it's a quick sound bite that doesn't delve too much into the issue. It's just an opportunity.

I suspect the real argument here is that Obamacare did not permit differentiation among ages and genders in the premiums, as is commonly done with car insurance, for example.

I myself would have no problem with a higher premium for a woman of childbearing age who elects to carry maternity coverage. (Provided a woman could opt out of maternity coverage altogether, or receive discounted insurance if she were sterilized.) I think that's the fair way to do it....you pay based on what you are going to use. But this would never survive in a million years, thanks to our pronatalist country. Obamacare was drafted by Congress, and Congress wants to spread the costs of breeding to everyone else.

Lawmakers could do one simple thing that would go a long way toward affordable care: pass a law that if you are going to be a hospital or an insurance company, you must be a non-profit entity. But I digress.

I agree with you if they want to pay higher premiums to elect pregnancy, might be a good profit booster. And they can also save money for maternity leave or anything else they want.
When applying for disability insurance as a woman at childbearing age it was very clear the insurance company was trying to guarantee I wasn't buying short term disability to pay for a high risk pregnancy. They made the premiums very high to prevent this from happening. I figured this out and elected long term disability insurance only.

Quote
bell_flower
I myself would have no problem with a higher premium for a woman of childbearing age who elects to carry maternity coverage. (Provided a woman could opt out of maternity coverage altogether, or receive discounted insurance if she were sterilized.) I think that's the fair way to do it....you pay based on what you are going to use. But this would never survive in a million years, thanks to our pronatalist country. Obamacare was drafted by Congress, and Congress wants to spread the costs of breeding to everyone else.

In my country, you can change your insurance once a year. There's a minimum which must be covered by all insurances, at a mandated price, and then you can opt for extras at whatever price the insurance wants to offer.

Anyhow, one year I found an insurance that specifically had a package relating to fertility. All aspects of it. I took that package for a year and got myself a shiny sterilization and then got rid of the coverage I no longer required. I am assuming the insurance company spent plenty of time figuring out what to charge for the package because with its fertility slant they could be reasonably sure most people wouldn't keep it around for more than a year, so it was probably a win-win.