XX Factor: the blog

Choose Between Health Care and Abortion

Remember those conservatives who don't want the government interfering in health care plans? Right, well, it turns out what they meant was they don't want the government interfering in health care plans, except when it comes to abortion. At that point, the government can interfere to its heart's content.

And it looks the government will, in fact, interfere, because in a bid to win pro-life Democrats' votes for the health care reform bill, Democratic leaders have agreed to allow a vote on an amendment that would ban both the public plan and private insurance plans that receive federal subsidies from covering abortions. With the support of all the House's Republicans and dozens of its Democrats, the amendment is expected to pass.

That means low- and middle-income women who qualify for government subsidies, along with the legions of women who will buy insurance on the exchange because they are either self-employed or employed by small businesses, won't be able to get plans that automatically include abortion coverage.

They could, in theory, pay out of pocket for a "rider" that would extend their coverage to include abortion. But Stupak-Pitt foes say the rider option is a charade, because most insurance companies won't even offer it. Businesses don't like to sell products that don't have a market, and the market for something like an abortion rider—essentially a plan for an unplanned pregnancy—is notoriously slim.

All of this congressional wrangling won't change the coverage of women who already have employer-based insurance plans. The Stupak-Pitt amendment doesn't affect corporate plans, so women who have abortion coverage will continue to have it, as long as their employers stick with the same insurance provider.

And most employer-based plans—87 percent, according to a 2002 Guttmacher survey—do cover abortions. That's not rape-and-incest-only coverage; it's for the intentionally broad category of "medically necessary and appropriate" abortions.

Comments

Buying itemized insurance is

By: kendobunny | Thu, 11/19/2009 - 00:09

Buying itemized insurance is nothing like buying only winning lottery tickets. Heck, let's look at my situation now: young woman in college, unmarried, not ready to start a family, slightly clumsy, overweight, but a frequent exerciser with excellent heart health. First off, accident and ER care insurance is a must. Then gynecological care would be good. Dental coverage might be nice, as would non-specific doctor visits for the flu and such-like. I do not need insurance for plastic surgery, for heart surgery, for any male surgeries, or for transgender therapy. I do not need abortion coverage or obstetrics insurance.

If I only pay for my car, without paying for my non-existent motorcycle and speedboat, why can't I only pay for things that my own personal body will need?

points

By: phpeter | Mon, 11/09/2009 - 09:26

cunnimingus, I disagree. Itemization is standard for other types of insurance. The participant is able to adjust their coverage based on their risk (homeownersm auto, std, ltd, etc). I guess the point is why mandate this comprehensive particiaption. If somebody opts out, it is their decision...correct?

Regarding the article and the respondants who have again found a way to blame republicans...you really aren't paying attention. This was a Dem issue all the way. Regarding the view that somehow republicans are inconsistant when it comes to applicability of they view of limited government, how does this amendment not jive with that? It a provision that restricts the expenditure of federal funds...that is exactly in line with their stance. You can blame the repubs for hypocrisy in a lot of different ways (Terry Shivo anyone), but you are incorrect in this instance.

'I just want the insurance I need"

By: cunnimingus | Sun, 11/08/2009 - 23:34

Kendobunny... your stance is flawed. It makes no more sense to argue for being able to buy "only the insurance I need" than it does to try to insist on being able to buy only winning lottery tickets.

Comprehensive insurance...

By: kendobunny | Sun, 11/08/2009 - 21:40

Why should the government mandate comprehensive insurance in the first place? It only raises the cost of private health care and disqualifies people with pre-existing conditions. I don't see why any health care plan that I buy will have insure me to have an abortion, because I will never have an abortion. So why should I pay higher premiums to cover a sometimes risky and insurance-jacking procedure when I will never use it?

Health care is itemized whether we like it or not, and allowing people to select only which services they find necessary is not unfairly penalizing anyone. Doctors who perform abortions must pay higher insurance rates, because complications are potentially a lot worse than basic gynecological care. Therefore, people who want to be covered for that eventuality should, logically, pay more than people who just want to be covered for basic gynecological care. On the same token, women who want to be covered for obstetrics should pay a higher rate than women who just want their yearly PAP smear and maybe birth control covered. What boggles my mind is how no one else seems to understand how devastating mandating comprehensive insurance is to prices, and how it helped land us in this whole mess in the first place.

Where is the amendment that

By: Lucky312 | Sun, 11/08/2009 - 13:11

Where is the amendment that requires maternity care and birth control be covered? These things would actually stop abortions in their tracks.

Ugh! I'm so upset about this!!

By: ktpeterson | Sun, 11/08/2009 - 12:04

I completely agree with the previous poster... Republicans wave the banner of small government and states rights except that they don't extend that philosophy to social issues and it's terribly hypocritical. HOWEVER, in this case Democrats sold us out! They traded safe, legally protected medical procedures for women in order to get a few extra votes. I'm appalled.

Politically, I fall in the oft-maligned middle. The group that neither party likes. I do not consider myself a Republican or a Democrat because the issues I'm passionate don't belong to just one party. But after this, one this is for sure, I will never ever call my self a Democrat.

Why are we allowing this to happen?

This is exactly why the

By: Bunnyhop234 | Sun, 11/08/2009 - 11:36

This is exactly why the Republican party aligning itself with the Religious Right never made any sense to me at all. Isn't the idea behind the traditional Republican party less government? Then suddenly, they want to get involved in obscenity, school prayer, and abortion, among other things. Very hypocritical. I would be a Republican if they were more like the party of Lincoln, but I cannot stomach the way the party is on social issues. I think there are many people who feel like I do.