Comments about ‘Is Obamacare's maternity coverage requirement fair?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 15 2013 4:30 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Richmond/Cache, UT

Why are people who have never paid more than a $25 copay in there early years complaining that now that they're done having a family they have to pay for something they don't need anymore? I wish paying for maternity had been an option for my family, but being self employed there aren't any plans that offer it. $10,000 is what it would cost even though I pay as much or more for insurance than most. There's a lot to work out with the new system but the old one was bad and no one dared touch it - insurance companies knew this which made it worse every year.

kitsap, WA

I chose not to have children. I don't see any sanity in my being forced to pay for those who get pregnant. Its is bad and unfair enough that those of us who have never had children and own property have to pay taxes for the education of others. People who rent pay no taxes for education and even get tax credits just because they have children, isn't that enough. If Obama wants everyone to have maternity coverage the he should pay for it. Lord knows he is spending BILLIONS all across the world without a care in the world because its not his money. Why doesn't he keep some of that money home and feed the poor or fix the crud that is wrong on our social fronts instead of supporting other countries with their problems.. He may just go down in history as the most inept President we have ever had, and that is really going some after Bush.I am sorry and ashamed to say that I voted for him.

Walnut, IL

Is it fair that women should pay for prostate cancer coverage? And a women cannot get pregnant with out male sperm. So men are also responsible for pregnancy!

Stephen Kent Ehat
Lindon, UT

[Knock at the door; you open the door and see a young man and a uniformed officer behind him]


Yes, I'm working my way through college and am selling this $30 coupon book valued at over $1,000. It provides you with discounts on car tires, lawn mowing, restaurants, flight lessons, high school football tickets, lawyer's services, contraceptives, and on and on.

Well, I'd be honored and happy to help you get through school. I salute your vigor. But I don't have a car (I ride a bike), as you could probably see I have xeriscape landscaping (no lawn), I eat at my sister's across the street, I'm afraid of flying, I don't like football, I am a lawyer, my wife died (so I don't need contraceptives), and on and on.

But you'd be helping me pay for my education. And others who do use those services will benefit from your donation.

No thank you.

[You begin to close the door. The officer behind the young man puts his foot in the doorway to stop the door from closing and puts his hand on his holstered weapon.]

How much was that coupon book?


Women of child bearing age should have maternity coverage, whether they plan on having children or not. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned, contraceptives aren't 100% effective. A friend of mine, self-employed had health insurance but no maternity coverage. She (married) consistently used birth control pills to prevent pregnancy but got pregnant when she had to go on antibiotics for bronchitis. The antibiotics reduced the effectiveness of the pills.

Why should insurance companies charge men more just because they have maternity coverage? Obviously they won't be using it--unless they are married and they have a family policy.

I understand your thinking, but it is short-sighted. Even though you don't have children, one day you will be seeing someone's well-educated "child" when you need to see a Dr. Your quality of life is going to be better if the children are well-educated and citizens are healthy.

How can anyone be worse than Bush--who left the economy in shambles and spent nearly a trillion on a pointless war?

Kaysville, UT

I would liken paying for maternity care the same as paying for education as a part of our property taxes.
Everyone pays and everyone benefits with the outcome.

Michael J

Seriously society we are having a debate like this. If that is the case then should we be debating public education, transportation, national parks, military spending, etc. etc. There is plenty of spending that favors one segment of society but not another. We are community are divergent needs and opportunities that needs to allocate resources. Childbirth, like education, seems to be one of those fundamental priorities that should be high on the list.

Ogden, UT

It's a transfer of wealth. Obama loves it. To him it's the holy grail.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Michael J is correct. This ala carte, I built it myself, I am an Island and I want coverage specialized down to my DNA only, group of people are completely blind to what made this nation great. It wasn't petty bickering about self reliance and how to be a self sustaining entity in a vacuum. It was what we did as a society. I know there are a lot of Ayn Rand Adherents on the right, but "The virtue of selfishness" should not be a guidebook for civilized society.

The U.S. comes together on momentous projects that may not benefit every person, but help society as a whole, from the land giveaways during the homestead act, to the huge dams on the Colorado river, to super site clean-up's, to protect us from foreign invaders. This healthcare project is a worthy endeavor, and is no where near perfect, but I'm sure no one thought we'd still be in Iraq 10 years later.

It will be worth it to free our citizens of the shackles of the healthcare industry in this country.

American Fork, UT

None of humanity's great achievements was for the benefit of one person. We survived because we learned to work together for common benefit, and we can do it again. Single payer health care is the way to go.

Cedar Hills, UT

Fair? Of course it's fair. What 55 year old man doesn't need maternity? I mean come on people.

Cedar Hills, UT

the so-called party of "choice" has now turned to the party of "force".

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

Being "fair" has little to do with Obamacare.

Obamacare is ONLY about control.

You have it - HE wants it!

JoCo Ute
Grants Pass, OR

RE: Morrissey . . "People who rent pay no taxes for education". What? Time for economics 101. As a landlord I can assure you that every single one of my renters pays property taxes. It's built into their rent, just like trash service and water.

As for those posters who feel put upon because they do not have children I'd ask who is going to defend the country, pay into your social security, become police men and women or doctors. Certainly not you children as you do not contribute any.

The idea that people should only pay for services that have a direct impact on their lives is greedy, shortsighted and goes against the sense of community that built this nation.

Wilf 55

Yes, it's fair. Solidarity. It's the way it's done in all other civilized countries. No mother should worry about affordable maternity care.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Chauncey: I'm sick and tired of havin' to pay for wimmen's pregnancies. I'll never be pregnant.
Edgar: Well, wimmen ain't ever gonna have prostate cancer, but you might. Why should they pay for you?
Chauncey: Well, now, that's differnt. I'm a man.

Arlington, TX

is any part of Obamacare Fair? The whole thing is designed to ruin our health care system and make the only option the SINGLE PAYER program, the only option at all. I do not want the GOVT to have any more control over my personal life and health care than we have to. I will fight it all the way. It is not fair, it is not legal, but it passed in the middle of the night and it is terrible.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

Yes, I am truly greatful at sixty to have maternity coverage. I can now sleep better. Not!

Phoenix, AZ

"Is Obamacare's maternity coverage requirement fair?"

Too funny!! Of course it's not fair. Insurance is for unexpected occurrences that COULD happen. Males giving birth will never happen.

People use the example of everyone pays taxes for roads even though a person might not own a vehicle. Yes, but that person might use the road as a passenger or perhaps eventually buy a car and drive it on the road.

Buying 'insurance' for something that will NEVER happen is not 'insurance.' It's inane stupidity.

spring street

While we are discussing what we should or should not pay for with insurance coverage, let's discuss the "family plan" insurance option.

A single individual buys insurance at a rate of "x".
A couple buys insurance at the rate (usually) of "2x" - twice the rate of a single policy. This could be for a couple or for a single parent with one child.
A family buys insurance at the rate of "2x+y" - a family policy is usually less than 3x. However, that policy covers the entire family, whether it is one parent with children or two parents with children - the rate is the same whether it is three people or ten. The out of pocket is the same for three people or ten.

Now, of course, this is the way insurance has been for decades and certainly has nothing to do with Obamacare. But if we are going to start demanding people pay in full for the services they receive and only the services they receive, insurance for families should be based on the number of family members.

I should not have to pay for you to insure your six children.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments