Sen Jon Kyl (Az) doesn't think insurance companies should be required to pay for basic maternity care. Because *he* certainly doesn't need it, ergo it would be "more expensive" to cover. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI) nails him - "But I think your Mom probably did".
Read More, after the jump:
What does Kyl think, that thousands of men are just biting the bit to file fraudulent maternity claims against their insurers? I think the insurance companies are smart enough to know they aren't at risk of paying for maternity care for customers who have no uterus and would price accordingly. Just like they would know they're not at risk of having to pay for prostate cancer screening or vasectomies for patients who have no penis. Unless said customer was a hermaphrodite. In which case, yes - they should have to pay for both. Somehow I don't think the odds of that happening are going to break the bank.
I wonder if Sen. Kyl understands the concept of risk pools? The idea is to *expand* the financial burden over as *broad*, and *diverse* a group as possible in order to minimize individual risk (and financial burden). That means I'm willing to pay a few cents to cover penile-related hazards that I'll never need in return to have non-uterine owning participants pay a few cents to cover my gynocological-related hazards. And no matter what bits and pieces you may have, *everyone* should be willing to pay a little to cover prenatal care and afterbirth care of future generations - regardless of what bits or pieces they may have. And like it or not, that care begins with providing the mother with maternity care.
This post brought to you by: