Kyl: "I Don't Need Maternity Care" So Employers Shouldn't Be Required To Provide It (VIDEO)

As the Senate Finance Committee moved into its fourth day of deliberations over the health care bill, tensions continued to rise.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), broke new ground defending an amendment he'd proposed that struck language from the bill defining which benefits employers are required to cover -- in this case, basic maternity care.

"I don't need maternity care," Kyl said. "So requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don't need and will make the policy more expensive."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), interrupted Kyl: "I think your mom probably did."

The amendment was defeated, nine to 14.

Comments

[clueless JD]

01:04 AM on 10/20/2009

Kyl's health care rant is different from his vote on the Franken bill--the only thing in common is the label "women's issues".

It is not reasonable to ask if it's fair for men and women to pay the same premiums for health coverage. Risk and use varies by gender. If you don't use risk to assess premiums, don't call it insurance.

It is unreasonab­le and outrageous to object to managing government contracts in a way that does not chill women from suing contractor­s in court for sexual assault.

Kyl may in fact not like women, but the issues are distinguis­hable on a basis other than an up or down on women.

[lafayette2009]

01:48 AM on 10/19/2009

While the amendment was proposed by Kyl, look at the vote that defeated it. 14-9 against his amendment.

Now remember the make-up of that Finance Committee. 13 Democrats and 10 Republican­s, one of whom was a woman - Snowe, who I am sure was the one republican who voted against it.

Therefore all the Republican men on that committee voted Yes for his amendment!­! Based on my health insurance, it is already an option so I am not sure what he was trying to achieve.

I am sure Kyl was one of the NAY's on the amendment Al Franken had passed.

[Zelyony1750]

01:44 AM on 10/18/2009

Mr. Kyl is in big trouble with the ladies! I wonder how his wife's reactions were? In a nutshell, he is saying that whatever women's issues are, they are not important to him. I would not want to be in his shoes! He is proving just how insensitiv­e he is to the women of this nation! Dumb Bell!

[jallands]

03:02 AM on 09/30/2009

I signed up on this site JUST so I could make this comment: Trying to say that men shouldn't pay for maternity care has NO LOGICAL VALIDITY WHATSOEVER­. Why? Because everyone benefits from it - you may not be a foetus anymore, but when you were, your mother's health determined your own. That is to say:

IF YOU WERE BORN, YOU NEEDED MATERNITY CARE. And uh, if you're reading this, I think it's pretty safe to say that you were born.

This is separate from the counter argument that, if Kyl's thinking was logically continued, women shouldn't have to pay for prostate exams.

Aside from that, I just plain ethically disagree that people should pay more for services based on their genetics.

[STX]

03:00 PM on 09/29/2009

Well, I won't be needing prostate surgery or Viagra, but I certainly wouldn't want to deny you the pleasure, you sexist pig!

[JSquercia]

05:35 PM on 10/19/2009

Yes it is an outrage that the Insurance companies will pay for men's Viagra and deny women Birth Control pills .

[Rapier]

10:57 PM on 09/28/2009

Joshua Frank's article on " .. the man behind healthcare­" tells a lot about where these guys are coming from.
http://oft­hisandthat­.org/Comme­ntary.html

[cybersense]

08:59 PM on 09/28/2009

Well, all I have to say is "be glad you don't have to go through that labor".

Look, I don't have certain parts either. It would be nice for employers to have some selective insurance room on different policies, but then who keep track of it all? That would be some amount of paper, eh?

[Mildmannered]

07:33 PM on 09/28/2009

Health Care Lessons From France --

http://www­.npr.org/t­emplates/s­tory/story­.php?story­Id=9241927­3

[Lisa Correa-Denoncourt]

06:12 PM on 09/28/2009

This whole disscussio­n is crazy. We have friends and family in Europe who think this whole insurance issue has turned insane. We should all have insurance, it should not be a luxury it should be a right.

[Startreklivz]

05:48 PM on 09/28/2009

if maternity care is not to be covered, then, to be fair, neither should prostate cancer nor Viagra .....

[converdb]

04:54 PM on 09/28/2009

"homo homini lupus"

with all due respect people. Right now you're the shame of the civilized world.
selfishnes­s and greed flooding the land.
Those guys who think poor people are losers who missed the train of the american dream are simply inhuman.

this makes me want to start a riot.

[lwilkerson50]

04:16 PM on 09/28/2009

Does he not have a wife?
Can we just get health care reform first and then make it so that things that men only have are on the list and the same for women.

Which it really doesn't make that much of a difference­.

Plus, he has government insurance plan which he pays only a certain percentage­.

If we start making it tailored to fit individual­s, that is where we are going to run into problems. He needs to tell us what percentage of a policy is for women or men.

Also, most policies are a one-size fits all and are still fairly cheap.

WTF is he talking about? Oh, adding another obstacle.

[akw]

03:39 PM on 09/28/2009

Sen. Kyle was simply proposing that maternity care be an option on some plans, not that insurance companies not be required to offer plans that cover maternity!­!! He is trying to find ways to make plans more affordable­, and what he says makes sense. Employers could offer some plans that don't cover women's maternity health issues and some that do. This is no different than offering catastroph­ic plans so that younger people who require much less medical care are covered for unforeseen major medical expenses. Medicare doesn't cover maternity care, either.

[MoeB]

03:52 PM on 09/28/2009

Well, people on medicare tend to be well beyond child-bear­ing age...so it makes sense.

[MJinCanada]

03:56 PM on 09/28/2009

That's dense. Women usually pay more for medical insurance precisely because they have women's health issues like pregnancy, cysts, etc.

[lwilkerson50]

04:19 PM on 09/28/2009

And even if you are making a co-pay, a woman usually pays more out of pocket expense.

It doesn't cost that much more, and if you don't have it in a policy and a woman (even around 50) can pop up pregnant.

The same with cancers, is that going to be the next target.

Like even men are starting to get Breast cancer, if we did that years ago, then a man would not be covered.

[jphillips021370]

03:39 PM on 09/28/2009

What I want to know is who were the other 8 who were in favor of this amendment.

[PennsyLiberal]

04:17 PM on 09/28/2009

Gee, I'm female. I don't have a prostate gland. Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay for the men who have prostate trouble. Duh

[BannedFromCommenting]

06:09 PM on 09/28/2009

Easy, the other 8 Repugs on the comittee. The 10th one, who sided with Dems, was the female. (Snowe)

[stayinsouth1981]

03:12 PM on 09/28/2009

I suppose he supports Higher Infant Mortality rates?

For shame.