Gov. Insurance would allow coverage for Abortion

[I AM EL-NINO]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.


Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.

"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."

Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said abortion opponents "want an abortion ban in private insurance, and that's not neutrality at all—that's a radical departure from current law. They want something far more extreme than where I think the American public is."

A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

"It's a sham," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "It's a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan."

Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever—not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother—to be offered through the insurance exchange.

"With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe," said Capps, who supports abortion rights. "Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well."

For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.

A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.

But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.

The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.

The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.

Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.

It would mirror the private insurance market, where abortion coverage is widely available. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002, while a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had coverage for abortions. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.

In the Senate, the plan passed by the health committee is still largely silent on the abortion issue. Staff aides confirmed that the public plan—and private insurance offered in the exchange—would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions.

Under both the House and Senate approaches, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.

Abortion opponents are seeking a prohibition against using any federal subsidies to pay for abortions or for any part of any costs of a health plan that offers abortion. Such a proposal was rejected by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same panel that approved Capps' amendment.

But abortion opponents say they can't accept a public plan that would cover abortion. And they say private plans in the insurance exchange should offer abortion coverage separately, as an option.

"You can have a result where nobody has to pay for other people's abortions," said Doerflinger.

Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said applying the current restrictions for federal employees and low-income women to a program intended for the middle class will provoke a backlash.

"There is a difference between picking off one group of women here and one group there and something that would affect a very large group," Hartmann said. "Everyone would like to avoid that fight."

[matt]

good. it should

[DataBass]

Originally Posted by matt

good. it should

Agreed.

Like that is a bad thing? lol.

[PETA]

if it does it'll make it that much harder to pass.... so I guess I'm all for including that provision too

[johnny861]

As it sounds like there's already federal funds allocated for abortions under special circumstances, it almost boils down to how well each side spins the issue.

[Nyteshade]

Honestly, I'd be surprised if insurance companies don't already cover abortions.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Honestly, I'd be surprised if insurance companies don't already cover abortions.

insurance companies don't use tax payer dollars - that's the distinction being made

no clue whether private plans cover the procedure... probably depends on the plan.

I've also always wondered... are all D&C procedures considered "abortions" or do they distinguish when it follows a miscarriage? How would that figure in to the gov't plans?

Originally Posted by johnny861

As it sounds like there's already federal funds allocated for abortions under special circumstances, it almost boils down to how well each side spins the issue.

either the plan will or will not pay for abortions

clarity is probably a useful thing - understanding when/if and under what circumstances etc etc

The stimulus bill passed without being read or any meaningful debate. The Dems in the house passed cap and trade without reading the bill... because it wasn't available to be read. Think they're clear on the details of the healthcare bill? Think there's reason to be concerned

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by DataBass

Agreed.

Like that is a bad thing? lol.

Its a bad thing that we will be forced to pay for someone elses decision to terminate a life expecially when we have absolutely nothing to do with it. I am all for the supporting a Mothers decision to do so however I cant see where I and others should have to pay for it. You got pregnant, you have to deal with it, if you decide to have an abortion you should have to pay for it. Not me or anyone else. So yes....its another bad idea. I cant for the life of me see where I should be responsible for financing someone elses problem.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by matt

good. it should

no doubt.

[matt]

but you should pay for their chemo? thats their problem too.

you are already paying for their chemo (at 1000 times the normal rate due to our awesome healthcare system). you are right. we should justs keep it the way it is. it is running perfectly

[Ash]

Originally Posted by I AM EL-NINO

Its a bad thing that we will be forced to pay for someone elses decision to terminate a life expecially when we have absolutely nothing to do with it. I am all for the supporting a Mothers decision to do so however I cant see where I and others should have to pay for it. You got pregnant, you have to deal with it, if you decide to have an abortion you should have to pay for it. Not me or anyone else. So yes....its another bad idea. I cant for the life of me see where I should be responsible for financing someone elses problem.

Do you pay taxes?


Good then you're already paying for people you have nothing to do with.

I mean why pay for a $200 procedure when you could be paying $20,000 for the baby to be born on Medcaid if the mother is homeless, poor, teenage, whatever. Oh, let's not forget the hundreds of thousands dollars of financial burden it will cost over it's lifetime.

Yeah, $200 is too much.

[matt]

sounds like an awesome plan!11

[PETA]

Originally Posted by I AM EL-NINO

however I cant see where I and others should have to pay for it.

....

I cant for the life of me see where I should be responsible for financing someone elses problem.

so... what about people in need of health care because of their decisions?

Smokers... people with horseshit diets... people who abuse drugs and alcohol?

Should bad choices leading to health consequences result in denial of care?

Originally Posted by Ash

Do you pay taxes?


Good then you're already paying for people you have nothing to do with.

I mean why pay for a $200 procedure when you could be paying $20,000 for the baby to be born on Medcaid if the mother is homeless, poor, teenage, whatever. Oh, let's not forget the hundreds of thousands dollars of financial burden it will cost over it's lifetime.

Yeah, $200 is too much.

Are you arguing that its better to terminate an unborn child's life than suffer the economic consequences of lettting it live?

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by matt

but you should pay for their chemo? thats their problem too.

you are already paying for their chemo (at 1000 times the normal rate due to our awesome healthcare system). you are right. we should justs keep it the way it is. it is running perfectly

You can live with going ahead and having a child. You cannot save a life stricken with certain types of cancer without chemo in this day and age. And, I dont pay for anything as my company covers the healthcare. And we as a company pay about 40% less in insurance fees that other companies might pay. Hence the reason they cover all of us AND our spouses 100% at no cost to the employee. So yes....for me and my wife it is running perfectly. We do not need any changes to our coverage. Expecially since we will not be having a pregnancey that we may have decided to abort in the future.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by matt

sounds like an awesome plan!11

You paid property taxes last year right? I'm sure it was well into the thousands if not $10k+.

1. How much did you pay into the Dallas ISD?
2. How many kids do you have that attend in Dallas ISD?
3. You sucked it up and dealt with it didn't you?


*hands out tissues*