Mediaboss Marketing

In 2013 during a meeting of the House Energy and Commerce committee, another Republican, Rep. Renee Elmers of North Carolina asked the same thing.

"Do men not have to buy maternity coverage?" Ellmers said, referring to the health-care law's essential health benefits. "To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?"

Hey, Republicans, heres a newsflash: the men will be just fine. But in case you really need proof, heres what insurance expert Nancy Metcalf has to say about that:

Health insurance, like all insurance, works by pooling risks. The healthy subsidize the sick, who could be somebody else this year and you next year. Those risks include any kind of health care a person might need from birth to death-prenatal care through hospice. No individual is likely to need all of it, but we will all need some of it eventually. [...]

So, as a middle-aged childless man you resent having to pay for maternity care or kids' dental care. Shouldn't turnabout be fair play? Shouldn't pregnant women and kids be able to say, "Fine, but in that case why should we have to pay for your Viagra, or prostate cancer tests, or the heart attack and high blood pressure you are many times more likely to suffer from than we are?"

We know the Republican men in Congress certainly dont want to give up their Viagra or Rogaine. And women across the country dont want to give up pregnancy and childbirth coverage either. And in a decent and humane society, we shouldnt have to.

See the original post:
Covering pregnancy and birth through insurance? Not part of the Republican agenda - Daily Kos