Schwarzenegger’s Next Expendables—California Women?
August 20, 2010 by Carol King · 6 Comments
National health care passed in March, but health insurance companies—with the full support of the California Republican legislators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—are still working overtime to gouge customers and block what would seem to be the most “family values”-friendly benefit of all: maternity services.
For the third time in as many years, California State Assemblymember Hector De La Torre is trying to extend maternity coverage to all women in California, through AB1825.
It has passed each year only to be terminated by the governor’s veto pen.
De La Torre says the governor “doesn’t like mandates.” The governor argues that any increase would be too much for many people, and they’d simply cancel their insurance.
The real problem is that employers have been cutting benefits and insurers have been targeting the uninsured with policies that lack maternity coverage. “Since 2003, the number of individual women covered has dropped precipitously from 82 percent to 26 percent today,” De La Torre said. “We will have to have maternal care in 2014”—it’s a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (national healthcare reform bill)–[so] “what do we do between now and then?”
Currently in California, HMOs, which are overseen by the Department of Managed Health Care, are already required to include maternity services in any policy they offer. But individual and group policies are regulated by the Department of Insurance and don’t have the same coverage requirements. AB1825 would bring the two into conformity, and it’s estimated to only cost between $7 to $8 per month per policy.
This is in marked contrast to what the law now allows and women have experienced. Health insurers can exclude maternity services in order to offer a cheap policy. Then, if you think you may want to get pregnant–and you have to plan this in advance because you won’t be able to get coverage once you are pregnant and thus have a “pre-existing condition”—the insurance company will offer you a special policy rider that can cost hundreds of dollars a month.
“We’ve heard the stories of women and what they’ve been charged. It’s outrageous,” said Beth McGovern, legislative director for the California Commission on the Status of Women.
A small business owner, who was newly married and wanted to start a family, told De La Torre’s committee that she couldn’t afford the pregnancy rider. So she had to close her business and go to work for a large employer that offered maternity benefits. “Women should not have to make life-altering decisions because of health insurance coverage,” said De La Torre.
In an effort to get the governor’s support, “There’s been some discussion about inserting an exclusionary period during which time pregnancy is not covered,” said McGovern. This is similar to other exclusions for pre-existing conditions and may be offered in the Senate. This isn’t an ideal solution but would offer women some coverage.
It’s up to the small-business-friendly governor. He’s just made a cameo appearance in Sylvester Stallone’s new action film, The Expendables, playing a mercenary named “Trench” who’s hired as part of a hit squad. Before he leaves state government, he should prove he hasn’t been bought and paid for by the health-insurance industry to become one of their hit men, bent on proving that women are expendable. He needs to make women’s health a priority before he returns to Hollywood full time. What’s he got to lose?
The bill is in the Senate now and is expected to hit his desk soon. He has until August 31 to let it become law or, once again, prove his insensitivity towards women’s and families’ needs with a veto.
Let him hear from the trenches. Call or email the governor’s office. Tell him California women are not expendables.
Image courtesy of Flickr user Nate Mandos under Creative Commons 2.0.
The hypocrisy of these people — on so many levels. It's so blatant. Bet prostate surgery is covered.
This is such a valuable update. 'Seems as though California women must mobilize. What's planned?
Phoebe Fibilcorne
Please call or email the Gov's office and have everyone you know contact his office. It only takes a minute. You can check in on the status of this bill with California NOW at http://www.canow.org/canoworg/legislation/ or the California Commission on the Status of Women at http://women.ca.gov/index.php?option=com_content&….
Well, just as Pelosi so proudly proclaimed: "Let's get this health care bill passed, so everyone can find out what's in it." Or words to that effect. Should anybody be surprised now? Thank you, oh wise one in the White House.
Guess pregnancy is considered a discretionary luxury item.
The solution for women — and for caring men — in this issue is found in establishing A PERMANENT CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED POWER BASE for women at the highest levels of the United States government. The ONLY possible way to accomplish this is to change the law regarding the U.S. Supreme Court. I have proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would guarantee Supreme Court Gender Equality.
My proposed amendment reads:
XXVIII Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Supreme Court Gender Equality
Gender equality shall be guaranteed on the Supreme Court and on the Court of Appeals according to the following:
1. The Congress shall determine an odd number of Justices no fewer than nine who shall together compose the Supreme Court. The total number of Justices shall include one Chief Justice of the United States and the remaining even number of Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, of whom all shall be citizens of the United States.
Of the total number of Associate Justices, half shall be male by legal designation and half shall be female by legal designation.
When vacancies occur, the President shall nominate Justices to the Supreme Court who are then appointed by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The Chief Justice shall be appointed for nine years, and shall not be reappointed Chief Justice thereafter. Associate Justices shall be appointed to hold their offices during good behavior. Successive Chief Justices shall alternate between male and female without exception.
The President shall nominate the Chief Justice according to gender from among the Associate Justices, except no person shall be eligible for nomination who would be more than 69 years old at the time of appointment. If no Associate Justice is qualified by age to be appointed the Chief Justice, the President shall appoint any other qualified person.
If an Associate Justice is nominated to be the Chief Justice by the President but fails to be appointed by the Senate, that Associate Justice shall retain the position of Associate Justice. If an Associate Justice becomes the Chief Justice, that Justice shall retire from the Supreme Court when the nine-year appointment as Chief Justice expires.
2. All Court of Appeals en banc courts shall be composed of an even number of Circuit Judges, of whom half shall be male by legal designation and half shall be female by legal designation. Only if the Circuit Chief Judge presides shall an entire en banc court be composed of an odd number of Judges.
3. Upon ratification, the amendment shall be enacted straightforwardly in due time.
All new Associate Justices shall be female until an equal number of male and female Associate Justices are seated on the Supreme Court. Thereafter, all Associate Justice seats will be identified as being either male or female, and will be filled as the need arises according to strict gender distinction without exception.
The current Chief Justice shall complete a nine-year term from the date he was sworn in as Chief Justice, and shall then immediately retire from the Supreme Court and shall be replaced by the first female Chief Justice of the United States. If the current Chief Justice leaves his position for any reason before his term expires, his appointed successor shall be female.
On a district basis, all Court of Appeals appointments shall be female until gender equality is achieved among active Circuit Judges. Thereafter, new appointments shall be made in a manner that maintains gender equality among all active Judges.
* * *
For more information and commentary, go to: http://supreme-court-gender-equality-pac.blogspot…
Steven A. Sylwester