Sebelius defends maternity coverage for men in Obamacare

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I have to do this. Liberal theme song:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5WxPyUzWSPA

[Dakine10 5,452]

Do I have to let my male employees take paternity leave?

It depends. If your business is covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the employee is eligible for leave, you must allow the employee to take up to 12 weeks of leave to care for a new child. This leave is unpaid and must be taken within a year of the child's arrival.

Generally, employers are not required to offer paid leave to either parent after a child's birth. However, if you do offer a paid maternity leave benefit, you must offer this leave to new fathers as well as mothers or risk a lawsuit for sex discrimination. In other words, if you offer paid leave, it must be parental leave, not maternal or paternal leave.

In addition, the states of California and New Jersey, as well as the District of Columbia, now provide paid family leave to new mothers and fathers. (The state of Washington has a similar law, but it has not gone into effect due to budgetary constraints.) Many others states are considering paid family leave laws as well.

Another 12 weeks per year per child...... Under Obama care do women have paid leave? Then there is the answer. Both parents will get paid leave. By time we are finished with obama care the country will be bankrupt. //www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/leave-policies-workplace-faq-29088-5.html

FMLA has nothing to do with Obamacare.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I think the difference here is maternity coverage is quite expensive under current plans. We pay for my wife's coverage at the moment and maternity vs no maternity is about 160 a month vs 250.

In terms of large enrollment plans, I think it makes sense to have a one size fits all, but if your buying individual insurance you should be allowed an exclusion.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I think the difference here is maternity coverage is quite expensive under current plans. We pay for my wife's coverage at the moment and maternity vs no maternity is about 160 a month vs 250.

In terms of large enrollment plans, I think it makes sense to have a one size fits all, but if your buying individual insurance you should be allowed an exclusion.

But they have to write on group coverage. If they sold individual polices the older and sick could not afford it.

[Sousuke 1,214]

But they have to write on group coverage. If they sold individual polices the older and sick could not afford it.

Maybe I'm missing the context. Under the new law all policies have to meet the new criteria, so do all individual plans require maternity coverage? My understanding is that providers must provide a minimum percentage with such coverage.

Again I may be talking apples and oranges here between group and individual.

[pro_star 52]

Oh noes three months mat/pat leave for a child?

Don't make me tell you what Canada gets. And we haven't fallen into the abyss yet. But suffice to say it's considerably longer.

Anyway. You gentlemen gripe about "oh noes we have to pay for delivery in our health insurance!" Well, we women have to pay for again the testicular/prostate procedures for you..and some other fun ones that I can't think of cause I just woke up.

I have my car/house insurance explain things like this (when I asked why my insurance jumped last year. Considering the flooding we got this spring...I better get the house sold before then cause I don't know how I'll afford that jump!!)

Insurance is like a big pool. When things happen that are a bigger draw (slave lake fires, southern Alberta flooding, complicated child delivery or cancer...) it affects everyone. So even though my house didn't get flooded or burned down, my rates go up to cover everyone. (So in case I don't have a complicated delivery or cancer...I'd rather they do that then come back and say oops sorry we're out of money)

[Peikko 1,575]

Which is why the only really sensible way to cover everyone with affordable care is to implement tax funded health care for all. The insurance companies do not want it, extremists don't want it but the fact is that it is the only viable option if you really want to keep health care costs under control and access to care open to everyone. Call it socialism, call it what you like but what the US currently has is pitiful and affordable health care will only improve things minimally.

The US system encourages people to wait too long to seek care leading to more expensive treatments and less hopeful outcomes. There is also a terrible tendency to self medicate with unproven, expensive and potentially dangerous supplements. It's insane.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Which is why the only really sensible way to cover everyone with affordable care is to implement tax funded health care for all. The insurance companies do not want it, extremists don't want it but the fact is that it is the only viable option if you really want to keep health care costs under control and access to care open to everyone. Call it socialism, call it what you like but what the US currently has is pitiful and affordable health care will only improve things minimally.

The US system encourages people to wait too long to seek care leading to more expensive treatments and less hopeful outcomes. There is also a terrible tendency to self medicate with unproven, expensive and potentially dangerous supplements. It's insane.

But is the US government actually capable of producing such a system? The NHS works (though not as well post 2009) because its backed by a capable government.

I support state level socialist programs, but the US Federal government is simply not capable of running a health program.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But is the US government actually capable of producing such a system? The NHS works (though not as well post 2009) because its backed by a capable government.

I support state level socialist programs, but the US Federal government is simply not capable of running a health program.

It isn't? Seems the federal government is doing quite well running Medicare and Tricare. So well, in fact, that beneficiaries of these programs are far more satisfied with their health care than those enslaved to the private insurance companies or the state run Medicaid services.

[BatmanUSA 105]

I gotta agree with the Big Dog, on this one...

Medicare seems to be working out well for everyone... although it did get complicated when the government added commercial Medicare HMO's (run by insurance companies) into the mix...

But Obama can not take credit for Medicare working so well. and his signature legislation is an absolute abomination. If the Republican party would just shut up about it, Obamacare will eventually explode ultimately causing even more problems..

We are already seeing Obamacare supporters start to complain about it..

The sad part is, Obama will be long gone by the time all the problems surface and the damage to our country, our economy and our healthcare system will be someone else's problem... Lets see if the next POTUS claims he inherited a mess from Obama.. Lets see if the media reports honestly about the problems caused by Obama and the Democratic party..

[Sousuke 1,214]

It isn't? Seems the federal government is doing quite well running Medicare and Tricare. So well, in fact, that beneficiaries of these programs are far more satisfied with their health care than those enslaved to the private insurance companies or the state run Medicaid services.

Medicare works more like a state run insurance company than an NHS.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's better insurance Charles! They were only supposed to ask about the website. Y'know, because ONLY the website is such a mess, the insurance to follow (if you can ever actually sign up) will be wonderful.

[Peikko 1,575]

But is the US government actually capable of producing such a system? The NHS works (though not as well post 2009) because its backed by a capable government.

I support state level socialist programs, but the US Federal government is simply not capable of running a health program.

I can't see how a state managed system could work unless everyone stayed home or it was managed federally. How would your care be transferred if you pay into it in say, Vermont and then you go on holiday in GA and GA decided not to implement a similar system? Insurance companies would love it of course, another slice of pie offering high price 'holiday' type insurance every time you cross state lines. Another nightmare scenario.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I can't see how a state managed system could work unless everyone stayed home or it was managed federally. How would your care be transferred if you pay into it in say, Vermont and then you go on holiday in GA and GA decided not to implement a similar system? Insurance companies would love it of course, another slice of pie offering high price 'holiday' type insurance every time you cross state lines. Another nightmare scenario.

Not entirely sure where you are going with your analogy but its not what I was saying. I'm arguing for a federal mandate requiring state level healthcare that would be reciprocal across all 50 states but ultimately managed and run by each state and perhaps subsidized by federal tax dollars from an NI type payment.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I can't see how a state managed system could work unless everyone stayed home or it was managed federally. How would your care be transferred if you pay into it in say, Vermont and then you go on holiday in GA and GA decided not to implement a similar system? Insurance companies would love it of course, another slice of pie offering high price 'holiday' type insurance every time you cross state lines. Another nightmare scenario.

Because you have no clue. Vermont has such a plan. We have had it since 2006. I have an insurance card in my pocket. If I go to Georgia and need care I give them my card. No nightmares. #######? It covered Alla and the boys right away because ANY legal resident is eligible. My premiums are very reasonable, emphasis on "VERY" and it is full coverage except for a small co-pay for pharmacy and $10 for office visits. Currently it is a very popular option for coverage. Next year we will have single payer that covers everyone. In 2009 I had heart bypass surgery and paid exactly -0- out of pocket for it. I am diabetic and my monthly prescriptions come to a total co-pay of $70. We have an outstanding medical facility here. It is one of our leading industries. Google "Fletcher Allen Healthcare" FAHC is a private employer, the employees are not government employees. The state does not provide "care" they provide payment for the care...insurance.

There is no "transfer" of care. The state is providing insurance. The insurance pays wherever you get treatment as long as you are a resident of Vermont. Why is this so difficult for you to imagine?

Insurance companes HATED it and lobbied heavily to prevent the implementation of the plan. We told them to ####### off.

The chairman of the state Senate committee that oversees the coverage has a small store in my city. Pasha worked in his store part time during the winter. If I have a problem with my coverage I can go buy a cup of coffee in his store and talk to him about it any weekday morning. The Governor comes once per month. Where is the nightmare?