Richard Mourdock Claim That Employers Should Not Have To Cover Cancer Sparks Attacks
Source: Huffington Post
Democrats are hammering Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock over his statement that employers should not have to cover cancer in their insurance plans if they don't want to.
Mourdock, the state treasurer, argued in a newspaper interview last week that not only should employers not have to cover health care services that they oppose, such as contraception, but they also should be exempt from paying for anything they do not want to include, based on costs.
Does that employer have the right to do it?" Mourdock told the News and Tribune, covering southern Indiana. "I would say yes they do if they want to keep their health care costs down but it also means its less likely youre going to want to work here. If that employer wants to get the best employees coming in the door hes going to offer the best insurance possible.
On Monday Indiana Democrats have been highlighting the remark, noting that while cancer takes a huge toll in Indiana every year, it's extremely expensive to treat and that 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/richard-mourdock-claim-cancer_n_1606005.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)And I don't think I know a family that hasn't lost someone to cancer. Sad, but true!
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Hotler
(11,494 posts)How about city and state tax payers shouldn't have to offer police and fire protection to businesses and corporations. Suck it dry you selfish shit stain.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)Just when I think they can't be any worse, one comes up with a heartless statement like this. Has he never had a family member stricken with cancer? Just the diagnosis can be so devastating. To add another layer of stress by taking away insurance coverage is just plain cruel.
Stuart G
(38,458 posts)Before this our chances in Indiana were ok, but still much less than 50/50...now I bet we have improved that greatly...
unblock
(52,516 posts)that mourdock! what a liberal!
Xipe Totec
(43,893 posts)And I loathe insurance companies.
Yes, we should be free to move from employer to employer without worrying about health coverage. Health coverage should not be used as handcuffs to keep us working for the same miserable employer.
Universal health coverage is the answer. Let the employers compete for labor on wages alone. Get them out of the health care equation.
tanyev
(42,693 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)medical benefits and save the state some money.
Hope you don't have bad genes or smoke, pal.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)benld74
(9,914 posts)cover asshattery by douche bag GOP wannabes?
Overseas
(12,121 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Just when you think they couldn't get any more callous...
madville
(7,413 posts)It gives the employer too much power over the employee. It should be an independent and portable item that isn't even a consideration in one's career decisions.
I personally believe that health insurance mandates and requiring employers to offer full service plans will be bad for employees and small business financially. I predict many current employer-based plans as we know them today will be dropped in the next few years and people will be left to pay rapidly increasing premiums mostly on their own.
This could be the plan all along. The Affordable Care Act could have been designed to fail from the beginning as a stepping stone to a single-payer style system. Think about it, when the healthcare premiums alone start bankrupting people and businesses and they are mandated to pay them, action will be demanded to correct the situation and for the government to step in.
Of course the danger with a Medicare style universal plan is that access to care and quality could diminish if the government low-balls all the providers and they don't have private insurance to cover the gap anymore.
LittleGirl
(8,292 posts)he's just one of many in these parts. Aren't we proud?
We've created monsters.
Politician.
Monster.
BootinUp
(47,231 posts)the way we are going. Get what you can anyway you can or you will be a homeless person someday. Oh, and don't burden society if you get sick, put a bullet in your brain instead.
marble falls
(57,659 posts)whined about last election cycle.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Puzzler
(2,505 posts)... from decades ago, and their "never pay insurance policy". Very reasonable, as long as you don't have a claim.
But seriously, what the f**k is the point of having medical insurance if something like cancer is not covered?
Smilo
(1,944 posts)is SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE FOR ALL - then your precious employers won't feel they are hard done by when one of their employees is unfortunate enough to fall ill - no matter what the cause.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)need to realize that the alternative is corporations. And corporations will do anything to save money, including making the decision to only cover "preventative health care" and cutting you loose if you get sick.
Corporations don't answer to anyone, they make their own rules.
I don't understand why corporations are chomping at the bit to get a single pay plan in place so that they don't have to spend ANY money on health care.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)corporations are people too
Javaman
(62,540 posts)it's as if they were hatched yesterday.
sinkingfeeling
(51,501 posts)really like it if an insurance company just got to collect premiums and didn't have to pay out for any treatment. What would be the point in buying insurance if it didn't cover major illnesses?
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Thanks to our elected leaders, our government says we have to buy it, or they'll sic the IRS on us.
sinkingfeeling
(51,501 posts)companies must cover and how much of every dollar must be paid out in claims. Read the bill.