Will the Stupak Amendment make any real difference?

Puppycow · 14th November 2009, 08:40 AM

The Stupak amendment is the amendment prohibiting insurance coverage for abortions for people who get subsidies.
But people can purchase a rider.

Here's the thing. It would actually save the insurance company money for an insured woman to get an abortion. A first trimester abortion costs a couple hundred dollars, while perinatal care and delivery costs a couple thousand dollars. So they could actually offer abortion riders for pretty cheap (even a penny) and it wouldn't increase insurance costs.

Symbolically it seems like a big deal, but as a practical matter it probably won't make much difference. Is it really worth it for pro-choice democrats to go to the mat for this?

EverLastingGodStopper · 14th November 2009, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The Stupak amendment is the amendment prohibiting insurance coverage for abortions for people who get subsidies.
But people can purchase a rider.

Here's the thing. It would actually save the insurance company money for an insured woman to get an abortion. A first trimester abortion costs a couple hundred dollars, while perinatal care and delivery costs a couple thousand dollars. So they could actually offer abortion riders for pretty cheap (even a penny) and it wouldn't increase insurance costs.

Symbolically it seems like a big deal, but as a practical matter it probably won't make much difference. Is it really worth it for pro-choice democrats to go to the mat for this?

No, fighting for personal bodily integrity and the right to make our own choices about when to have babies is nothing worth going to the mat for.

Let's go, ladies, back to the kitchen!

quixotecoyote · 14th November 2009, 10:14 AM

Leave your shoes at the door, if you please.

Merko · 14th November 2009, 10:16 AM

I'm not quite sure what a 'rider' is, but my understanding is that it would not be possible for insurers participating in the exchange system to provide abortion coverage, even as an extra. There were some proposals in the house to demand merely that abortion coverage would have to be accounted for separately (to avoid taxpayer money covering abortions) but apparently that was not enough for some democrats.

As far as I understand, only a small minority of abortions in the US today are paid for by insurance, so the impact would probably not be major. If I had anything to say in the matter, I would fight hard to remove or change this outrageous limitation, but I would not let it sink the entire package if it came to that. It should be possible to repeal or amend this at a later date, or to find a workaround of some sort. I think the sheer outrageousness of this amendment is in no small part an attempt to sabotage the debate and introduce controversy.

EverLastingGodStopper · 14th November 2009, 10:26 AM

Fortunately there is the Abortion Access Fund and the National Network of Abortion Funds, and most clinics have a "WIN (Women In Need)" fund for patients who can not afford the procedure (which is usually $250-300 if you are awake, and $500-600 if you are asleep).

I hope that donations to these charities go up as the government works to prevent poor women from obtaining coverage for reproductive healthcare.

EverLastingGodStopper · 14th November 2009, 10:46 AM

Also, here is one of many petitions being circulated against the Stupak-Pitts language: http://site.pfaw.org/Stupak-Pitts

The signatures will be submitted on Monday by People For the American Way, so you only have today and tomorrow to add your name to the list if you so choose.

ETA: here's another one. You can send them a coathanger.

Quote:

Why did pro-choice Democrats vote to approve the Stupak Amendment, the most serious assault on abortion rights in a generation?

According to FiveThirtyEight.com, 20 of the 64 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass the measure are nominally pro-choice. We need to tell these 20 Democrats to reconsider their vote and urge Congressional leadership to do everything they can to ensure the health care bill that comes out of committee does not take us back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions.

I just signed a petition to the 20 formerly pro-choice Democrats -- all of them men -- who voted to take away women's rights. For every person that signs the petition a coat hanger will be sent to remind these politicians what happens when women can't get access to reproductive health care including abortion.

Please have a look and take action.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/...dEVx&rc=paste1

boooeee · 14th November 2009, 01:23 PM

Insurance coverage for abortions varies from company to company. However, the cost is minimal when spread across the entire risk pool. Unfortunately, that will no longer be the case if the government forces it to be sold as a rider. Since the only people willing to buy the rider will be the ones expecting to have an abortion, the cost of the rider will probably not be too much less than simply paying for the abortion out of pocket.

Seems like a pretty cynical political ploy to me; an attempt to poison the well with pro-life outrage.

Brainster · 14th November 2009, 02:42 PM

Gasp! Don't tell me someone's playing politics! The horror!

parky76 · 14th November 2009, 03:04 PM

how about they instead offer a "Pregancy Rider". this will cover all pregnancy related expences, including abortion.

that way, if you never plan on having kids or getting pregnant, you pay less in premiums.

Puppycow · 14th November 2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by boooeee

Insurance coverage for abortions varies from company to company. However, the cost is minimal when spread across the entire risk pool. Unfortunately, that will no longer be the case if the government forces it to be sold as a rider. Since the only people willing to buy the rider will be the ones expecting to have an abortion, the cost of the rider will probably not be too much less than simply paying for the abortion out of pocket.

Seems like a pretty cynical political ploy to me; an attempt to poison the well with pro-life outrage.

Did you read the OP?

Puppycow · 14th November 2009, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Merko

I'm not quite sure what a 'rider' is, but my understanding is that it would not be possible for insurers participating in the exchange system to provide abortion coverage, even as an extra.

That's not what I've heard. Reporters have said that the legislation allows it. There are arguments, however, that there would be no market for the rider because nobody plans to have an abortion. I don't quite get that argument though. People don't plan to get sick, die or for their house to burn down either, but they buy insurance for these things.

boooeee · 14th November 2009, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Did you read the OP?

Yep. "no coverage for abortion" does not imply "no abortion"

Even if it's not covered by your insurance, you're still probably going to find a way to pay for it yourself. As EverLastingGodStopper points out, the cost varies from $250-$600, and there's plenty of charities out there that will try to help you out.

It would only make financial sense for the insurance company to pay for the abortion if they were assured that the woman would take the baby to term otherwise. I don't see this happening in the majority of cases, but I could be wrong.

MattusMaximus · 14th November 2009, 07:53 PM

Meh. Personally, I see this as a tempest in a teapot. Many pro-life and pro-choice organizations are going to make a lot of money off the hubbub over this, and the media will keep beating it like a drum because they have to find something to whip people up into a frenzy over

Puppycow · 15th November 2009, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by boooeee

Yep. "no coverage for abortion" does not imply "no abortion"

Even if it's not covered by your insurance, you're still probably going to find a way to pay for it yourself. As EverLastingGodStopper points out, the cost varies from $250-$600, and there's plenty of charities out there that will try to help you out.

It would only make financial sense for the insurance company to pay for the abortion if they were assured that the woman would take the baby to term otherwise. I don't see this happening in the majority of cases, but I could be wrong.

Well, if there's a clever businessperson out there, I'll bet they could win a lot of customers if they offered a fair-priced abortion rider. A lot of pro-choice people, even those who don't expect to need an abortion rider, might choose that company on principle.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that being pro-choice necessarily means that you should favor the government paying for elective abortions in cases other than rape or incest.

boooeee · 15th November 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Well, if there's a clever businessperson out there, I'll bet they could win a lot of customers if they offered a fair-priced abortion rider. A lot of pro-choice people, even those who don't expect to need an abortion rider, might choose that company on principle.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that being pro-choice necessarily means that you should favor the government paying for elective abortions in cases other than rape or incest.

It's possible. But the only people who will have to buy the rider are the ones eligible for the subsidy. By definition, these are people with limited means; they would be least likely to shell out extra money "on principle".

INRM · 15th November 2009, 12:30 PM

It wouldn't be that hard to get an abortion. She could leave the country and get an abortion where it's legal, or could just get a D&C.

INRM

EverLastingGodStopper · 15th November 2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

It wouldn't be that hard to get an abortion. She could leave the country and get an abortion where it's legal, or could just get a D&C.

Are you serious?

INRM · 15th November 2009, 12:57 PM

EverLastingGodStopper,

Abortions are legal in many other countries, and D&C's are covered by insurance which is virtually identical to an abortion proceedure except when a D&C is done a fetus isn't typically there

EverLastingGodStopper · 15th November 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

Abortions are legal in many other countries, and D&C's are covered by insurance which is virtually identical to an abortion proceedure except when a D&C is done a fetus isn't typically there

That coverage is probably limited to citizens of the respective countries you refer to.

Many women do not have the financial means to travel to obtain an abortion. It is already prohibitively expensive in the USA for some women to travel within their own states to obtain an abortion, much less to travel to another state.

No-Choice: 87% Of U.S. Counties Have No Access To Abortion Clinic

It is galling to suggest that the most needy, impoverished women can just get up and travel to a foreign country to obtain necessary medical care. I mean, most people can not just pick up and jump on an airplane whenever they feel like it. It is unrealistic and arrogant to assume that people are capable of just traveling wherever they want whenever they want.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abort..._abortion.html

Quote:

The result is that too many women who need abortions must wait while they raise funds, postponing their abortions until later in their pregnancies, when the costs of these more complicated abortion procedures are higher. For the women who are struggling to make ends meet and who do not have insurance that covers abortion, the legal right to have an abortion does not guarantee that they will have access to it.

Puppycow · 16th November 2009, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by INRM

It wouldn't be that hard to get an abortion. She could leave the country and get an abortion where it's legal, or could just get a D&C.

INRM

Um, the Stupak amendment does not make abortion illegal anywhere.

As EverLastingGodStopper has already mentioned, leaving the country would be very expensive, and abortions are not free in other countries either. Leaving the country would just be more expensive and troublesome (one would need to first get a passport, which takes weeks, unless one already has one).

INRM · 16th November 2009, 03:12 PM

Personally I think this Stupak Amendment is a Stupid Amendment

I don't think abortion should be used like Birth Control, but I don't think Abortions should not be covered by health-insurance either.

Dancing David · 17th November 2009, 06:01 AM

It can and will be a medically nessecary procedure at times, there are women who will be at risk of death and serious disability due to complications (not a huge number but appreciable), so they will not have a procedure covered and have to pay huge bills,

Because of some bronze age mentality and magical thinking.

EverLastingGodStopper · 17th November 2009, 07:50 AM

Stupak Abortion Amendment Apparently Did Nothing

Quote:

In a rather odd interview with The Atlantic, Rep. Bart Stupak accused opponents of his controversial amendment to ban all abortion coverage of distorting what his amendment does and repeatedly said that the amendment didn't actually change anything at all.

Referring to the Hyde Amendment, a law passed in 1976 that prohibits federal money from being used to pay for abortions under any circumstances, Stupak said over and over again that his amendment merely maintained that current law.

<see site for Stupak quote>

But this leads to a rather obvious question: Then why was it necessary to pass the amendment in the first place? If federal law already prevented the health care reform bill from funding abortion and the amendment changed absolutely nothing, as Stupak repeatedly insists, then why was he so adamant that he would not vote for the bill unless it contained this admittedly repetitive and superfluous amendment? Inquiring minds want to know.

I feel dumber than a Palin right now, because I thought that the Hyde Amendment had been repealed or withdrawn some time ago (during the Clinton Administration? I guess not) and Stupak was trying to push it back in. I didn't realize that the nation's poorest and/or disabled women, who are on Medicaid, and who may have other health issues, are already denied comprehensive reproductive health coverage. Sigh.

ponderingturtle · 17th November 2009, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Merko

I'm not quite sure what a 'rider' is, but my understanding is that it would not be possible for insurers participating in the exchange system to provide abortion coverage, even as an extra. There were some proposals in the house to demand merely that abortion coverage would have to be accounted for separately (to avoid taxpayer money covering abortions) but apparently that was not enough for some democrats.

This isn't true. The ammendment is that people who object to abortion have mannaged to prevent any tax money from going to it, becuase they disapprove of it(I wish I could get some of that banning things I don't like from federal money). So they will not let any federal money from going to any plan that covers abortion. Insurance companies can still have them, provided they have a similar plan with out it. And you can only get the plan with out it if you get any tax break or such thing to get your insurance.

ponderingturtle · 17th November 2009, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

It can and will be a medically nessecary procedure at times, there are women who will be at risk of death and serious disability due to complications (not a huge number but appreciable), so they will not have a procedure covered and have to pay huge bills,

Because of some bronze age mentality and magical thinking.

What is wrong with a little vicarious cruelty?

I like the situations were a fetus is known to be nonviable, now women will have no choice unless it can be shown to be a direct threat to their life but to carry it to term, then let it die on its own.

Peephole · 17th November 2009, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper

Stupak Abortion Amendment Apparently Did Nothing

I feel dumber than a Palin right now, because I thought that the Hyde Amendment had been repealed or withdrawn some time ago (during the Clinton Administration? I guess not) and Stupak was trying to push it back in. I didn't realize that the nation's poorest and/or disabled women, who are on Medicaid, and who may have other health issues, are already denied comprehensive reproductive health coverage. Sigh.

It still makes it worse. As I understand it, a whole range of health care plans that will fall under the exhange, will get subsidies and will consequently be prohibited from offering abortion coverage. Which isn't the case at the moment.

EverLastingGodStopper · 17th November 2009, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Peephole

It still makes it worse. As I understand it, a whole range of health care plans that will fall under the exhange, will get subsidies and will consequently be prohibited from offering abortion coverage. Which isn't the case at the moment.

Thanks, I feel a little less Palinesque... and a lot more scared about the women's rights and the separation of church and state.

leftysergeant · 18th November 2009, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper

Thanks, I feel a little less Palinesque... and a lot more scared about the women's rights and the separation of church and state.

The abortion issue is not the only defect that I see in that lout Stupak. He does not belong in congress. He is part of a whackadoodle religious cult with plans to overturn constitutional law.

Servants of the Harlot of Revelations, the lot of them, and they need to be run out of the halls of government. Stupak will quite probably be the first Democrat thrown under the bus by his own party in the next cycle. It would almost be worth running the risk of a seat going to a Republican, as long as the Republican believes in separation of church and state.

Stupak is as classy as a ham and cheese sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah, and I hope he gets treated that way back home. I'm tired of his kind. He and that sleaze ball cult should all be investigated for tax fraud.

EverLastingGodStopper · 18th November 2009, 07:10 AM

I read in the news today that President Obama said he would veto any version of the health care bill that contains the Stupak language.

leftysergeant · 18th November 2009, 07:14 AM

Idiot boy Stupak thinks he has enough votes to stop all house action on the bill if it does not come out exactly as he wants it written.

Time for that moron to go away.

Maybe someone should call for an ethics probe on him and the rest of the C Street trash now, while we still have a country ruled by mundane laws, rather than the ranting of the superstitious whackjobs.

14th November 2009, 08:40 AM	#1
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Will the Stupak Amendment make any real difference? The Stupak amendment is the amendment prohibiting insurance coverage for abortions for people who get subsidies. But people can purchase a rider. Here's the thing. It would actually save the insurance company money for an insured woman to get an abortion. A first trimester abortion costs a couple hundred dollars, while perinatal care and delivery costs a couple thousand dollars. So they could actually offer abortion riders for pretty cheap (even a penny) and it wouldn't increase insurance costs. Symbolically it seems like a big deal, but as a practical matter it probably won't make much difference. Is it really worth it for pro-choice democrats to go to the mat for this?
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

14th November 2009, 10:13 AM	#2
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	Originally Posted by Puppycow The Stupak amendment is the amendment prohibiting insurance coverage for abortions for people who get subsidies. But people can purchase a rider. Here's the thing. It would actually save the insurance company money for an insured woman to get an abortion. A first trimester abortion costs a couple hundred dollars, while perinatal care and delivery costs a couple thousand dollars. So they could actually offer abortion riders for pretty cheap (even a penny) and it wouldn't increase insurance costs. Symbolically it seems like a big deal, but as a practical matter it probably won't make much difference. Is it really worth it for pro-choice democrats to go to the mat for this? No, fighting for personal bodily integrity and the right to make our own choices about when to have babies is nothing worth going to the mat for. Let's go, ladies, back to the kitchen!
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams

14th November 2009, 10:14 AM	#3
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,300	Leave your shoes at the door, if you please.
	__________________ Ladewig: I'll start worrying about the media's liberal bias the day I hear of labor negotiations described as management demands and union concessions. Thank you for the avatar xkcd.

14th November 2009, 10:16 AM	#4
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,336	I'm not quite sure what a 'rider' is, but my understanding is that it would not be possible for insurers participating in the exchange system to provide abortion coverage, even as an extra. There were some proposals in the house to demand merely that abortion coverage would have to be accounted for separately (to avoid taxpayer money covering abortions) but apparently that was not enough for some democrats. As far as I understand, only a small minority of abortions in the US today are paid for by insurance, so the impact would probably not be major. If I had anything to say in the matter, I would fight hard to remove or change this outrageous limitation, but I would not let it sink the entire package if it came to that. It should be possible to repeal or amend this at a later date, or to find a workaround of some sort. I think the sheer outrageousness of this amendment is in no small part an attempt to sabotage the debate and introduce controversy.
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,336

14th November 2009, 10:26 AM	#5
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	Fortunately there is the Abortion Access Fund and the National Network of Abortion Funds, and most clinics have a "WIN (Women In Need)" fund for patients who can not afford the procedure (which is usually $250-300 if you are awake, and $500-600 if you are asleep). I hope that donations to these charities go up as the government works to prevent poor women from obtaining coverage for reproductive healthcare.
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams

14th November 2009, 10:46 AM	#6
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	Also, here is one of many petitions being circulated against the Stupak-Pitts language: http://site.pfaw.org/Stupak-Pitts The signatures will be submitted on Monday by People For the American Way, so you only have today and tomorrow to add your name to the list if you so choose. ETA: here's another one. You can send them a coathanger. Quote: Why did pro-choice Democrats vote to approve the Stupak Amendment, the most serious assault on abortion rights in a generation? According to FiveThirtyEight.com, 20 of the 64 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass the measure are nominally pro-choice. We need to tell these 20 Democrats to reconsider their vote and urge Congressional leadership to do everything they can to ensure the health care bill that comes out of committee does not take us back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions. I just signed a petition to the 20 formerly pro-choice Democrats -- all of them men -- who voted to take away women's rights. For every person that signs the petition a coat hanger will be sent to remind these politicians what happens when women can't get access to reproductive health care including abortion. Please have a look and take action. http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/...dEVx&rc=paste1
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams Last edited by EverLastingGodStopper; 14th November 2009 at 10:54 AM.

14th November 2009, 01:23 PM	#7
boooeee Dart Fener Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Lando System Posts: 1,867	Insurance coverage for abortions varies from company to company. However, the cost is minimal when spread across the entire risk pool. Unfortunately, that will no longer be the case if the government forces it to be sold as a rider. Since the only people willing to buy the rider will be the ones expecting to have an abortion, the cost of the rider will probably not be too much less than simply paying for the abortion out of pocket. Seems like a pretty cynical political ploy to me; an attempt to poison the well with pro-life outrage.
	__________________ "I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress." - Daniel Boorstin "When the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon all your problems look like squirrels." - NoZed Avenger

14th November 2009, 02:42 PM	#8
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	Gasp! Don't tell me someone's playing politics! The horror!
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	__________________ 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog. Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

14th November 2009, 03:04 PM	#9
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,490	how about they instead offer a "Pregancy Rider". this will cover all pregnancy related expences, including abortion. that way, if you never plan on having kids or getting pregnant, you pay less in premiums.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

14th November 2009, 03:59 PM	#10
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by boooeee Insurance coverage for abortions varies from company to company. However, the cost is minimal when spread across the entire risk pool. Unfortunately, that will no longer be the case if the government forces it to be sold as a rider. Since the only people willing to buy the rider will be the ones expecting to have an abortion, the cost of the rider will probably not be too much less than simply paying for the abortion out of pocket. Seems like a pretty cynical political ploy to me; an attempt to poison the well with pro-life outrage. Did you read the OP?
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

14th November 2009, 04:17 PM	#11
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by Merko I'm not quite sure what a 'rider' is, but my understanding is that it would not be possible for insurers participating in the exchange system to provide abortion coverage, even as an extra. That's not what I've heard. Reporters have said that the legislation allows it. There are arguments, however, that there would be no market for the rider because nobody plans to have an abortion. I don't quite get that argument though. People don't plan to get sick, die or for their house to burn down either, but they buy insurance for these things.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

14th November 2009, 04:22 PM	#12
boooeee Dart Fener Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Lando System Posts: 1,867	Originally Posted by Puppycow Did you read the OP? Yep. "no coverage for abortion" does not imply "no abortion" Even if it's not covered by your insurance, you're still probably going to find a way to pay for it yourself. As EverLastingGodStopper points out, the cost varies from $250-$600, and there's plenty of charities out there that will try to help you out. It would only make financial sense for the insurance company to pay for the abortion if they were assured that the woman would take the baby to term otherwise. I don't see this happening in the majority of cases, but I could be wrong.
	__________________ "I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress." - Daniel Boorstin "When the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon all your problems look like squirrels." - NoZed Avenger

14th November 2009, 07:53 PM	#13
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	Meh. Personally, I see this as a tempest in a teapot. Many pro-life and pro-choice organizations are going to make a lot of money off the hubbub over this, and the media will keep beating it like a drum because they have to find something to whip people up into a frenzy over
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

15th November 2009, 12:28 AM	#14
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by boooeee Yep. "no coverage for abortion" does not imply "no abortion" Even if it's not covered by your insurance, you're still probably going to find a way to pay for it yourself. As EverLastingGodStopper points out, the cost varies from $250-$600, and there's plenty of charities out there that will try to help you out. It would only make financial sense for the insurance company to pay for the abortion if they were assured that the woman would take the baby to term otherwise. I don't see this happening in the majority of cases, but I could be wrong. Well, if there's a clever businessperson out there, I'll bet they could win a lot of customers if they offered a fair-priced abortion rider. A lot of pro-choice people, even those who don't expect to need an abortion rider, might choose that company on principle. I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that being pro-choice necessarily means that you should favor the government paying for elective abortions in cases other than rape or incest.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

15th November 2009, 10:32 AM	#15
boooeee Dart Fener Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Lando System Posts: 1,867	Originally Posted by Puppycow Well, if there's a clever businessperson out there, I'll bet they could win a lot of customers if they offered a fair-priced abortion rider. A lot of pro-choice people, even those who don't expect to need an abortion rider, might choose that company on principle. I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that being pro-choice necessarily means that you should favor the government paying for elective abortions in cases other than rape or incest. It's possible. But the only people who will have to buy the rider are the ones eligible for the subsidy. By definition, these are people with limited means; they would be least likely to shell out extra money "on principle".
	__________________ "I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress." - Daniel Boorstin "When the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon all your problems look like squirrels." - NoZed Avenger

15th November 2009, 12:30 PM	#16
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	It wouldn't be that hard to get an abortion. She could leave the country and get an abortion where it's legal, or could just get a D&C. INRM
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571

15th November 2009, 12:36 PM	#17
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	Originally Posted by INRM It wouldn't be that hard to get an abortion. She could leave the country and get an abortion where it's legal, or could just get a D&C. Are you serious?
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams

15th November 2009, 12:57 PM	#18
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	EverLastingGodStopper, Abortions are legal in many other countries, and D&C's are covered by insurance which is virtually identical to an abortion proceedure except when a D&C is done a fetus isn't typically there
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571

15th November 2009, 01:09 PM	#19
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	Originally Posted by INRM Abortions are legal in many other countries, and D&C's are covered by insurance which is virtually identical to an abortion proceedure except when a D&C is done a fetus isn't typically there That coverage is probably limited to citizens of the respective countries you refer to. Many women do not have the financial means to travel to obtain an abortion. It is already prohibitively expensive in the USA for some women to travel within their own states to obtain an abortion, much less to travel to another state. No-Choice: 87% Of U.S. Counties Have No Access To Abortion Clinic It is galling to suggest that the most needy, impoverished women can just get up and travel to a foreign country to obtain necessary medical care. I mean, most people can not just pick up and jump on an airplane whenever they feel like it. It is unrealistic and arrogant to assume that people are capable of just traveling wherever they want whenever they want. http://www.prochoice.org/about_abort..._abortion.html Quote: The result is that too many women who need abortions must wait while they raise funds, postponing their abortions until later in their pregnancies, when the costs of these more complicated abortion procedures are higher. For the women who are struggling to make ends meet and who do not have insurance that covers abortion, the legal right to have an abortion does not guarantee that they will have access to it.
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams

16th November 2009, 02:14 AM	#20
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by INRM It wouldn't be that hard to get an abortion. She could leave the country and get an abortion where it's legal, or could just get a D&C. INRM Um, the Stupak amendment does not make abortion illegal anywhere. As EverLastingGodStopper has already mentioned, leaving the country would be very expensive, and abortions are not free in other countries either. Leaving the country would just be more expensive and troublesome (one would need to first get a passport, which takes weeks, unless one already has one).
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

16th November 2009, 03:12 PM	#21
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	Personally I think this Stupak Amendment is a Stupid Amendment I don't think abortion should be used like Birth Control, but I don't think Abortions should not be covered by health-insurance either.
INRM Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,571	Last edited by INRM; 16th November 2009 at 03:13 PM.

17th November 2009, 06:01 AM	#22
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 18,357	It can and will be a medically nessecary procedure at times, there are women who will be at risk of death and serious disability due to complications (not a huge number but appreciable), so they will not have a procedure covered and have to pay huge bills, Because of some bronze age mentality and magical thinking.
	__________________ Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.- Walt Kelly wow Mr.Philospher, you need some custard poured over your head mayhaps? -kittynh "Exhibit 1338A as to why the Politics forum is "where rational thought goes to die."-Carlitos

17th November 2009, 07:50 AM	#23
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	Stupak Abortion Amendment Apparently Did Nothing Quote: In a rather odd interview with The Atlantic, Rep. Bart Stupak accused opponents of his controversial amendment to ban all abortion coverage of distorting what his amendment does and repeatedly said that the amendment didn't actually change anything at all. Referring to the Hyde Amendment, a law passed in 1976 that prohibits federal money from being used to pay for abortions under any circumstances, Stupak said over and over again that his amendment merely maintained that current law. <see site for Stupak quote> But this leads to a rather obvious question: Then why was it necessary to pass the amendment in the first place? If federal law already prevented the health care reform bill from funding abortion and the amendment changed absolutely nothing, as Stupak repeatedly insists, then why was he so adamant that he would not vote for the bill unless it contained this admittedly repetitive and superfluous amendment? Inquiring minds want to know. I feel dumber than a Palin right now, because I thought that the Hyde Amendment had been repealed or withdrawn some time ago (during the Clinton Administration? I guess not) and Stupak was trying to push it back in. I didn't realize that the nation's poorest and/or disabled women, who are on Medicaid, and who may have other health issues, are already denied comprehensive reproductive health coverage. Sigh.
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams

17th November 2009, 08:06 AM	#24
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,763	Originally Posted by Merko I'm not quite sure what a 'rider' is, but my understanding is that it would not be possible for insurers participating in the exchange system to provide abortion coverage, even as an extra. There were some proposals in the house to demand merely that abortion coverage would have to be accounted for separately (to avoid taxpayer money covering abortions) but apparently that was not enough for some democrats. This isn't true. The ammendment is that people who object to abortion have mannaged to prevent any tax money from going to it, becuase they disapprove of it(I wish I could get some of that banning things I don't like from federal money). So they will not let any federal money from going to any plan that covers abortion. Insurance companies can still have them, provided they have a similar plan with out it. And you can only get the plan with out it if you get any tax break or such thing to get your insurance.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th November 2009, 08:13 AM	#25
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,763	Originally Posted by Dancing David It can and will be a medically nessecary procedure at times, there are women who will be at risk of death and serious disability due to complications (not a huge number but appreciable), so they will not have a procedure covered and have to pay huge bills, Because of some bronze age mentality and magical thinking. What is wrong with a little vicarious cruelty? I like the situations were a fetus is known to be nonviable, now women will have no choice unless it can be shown to be a direct threat to their life but to carry it to term, then let it die on its own.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th November 2009, 09:35 AM	#26
Peephole Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,328	Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper Stupak Abortion Amendment Apparently Did Nothing I feel dumber than a Palin right now, because I thought that the Hyde Amendment had been repealed or withdrawn some time ago (during the Clinton Administration? I guess not) and Stupak was trying to push it back in. I didn't realize that the nation's poorest and/or disabled women, who are on Medicaid, and who may have other health issues, are already denied comprehensive reproductive health coverage. Sigh. It still makes it worse. As I understand it, a whole range of health care plans that will fall under the exhange, will get subsidies and will consequently be prohibited from offering abortion coverage. Which isn't the case at the moment.
	__________________ 911science The Field

17th November 2009, 09:41 AM	#27
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	Originally Posted by Peephole It still makes it worse. As I understand it, a whole range of health care plans that will fall under the exhange, will get subsidies and will consequently be prohibited from offering abortion coverage. Which isn't the case at the moment. Thanks, I feel a little less Palinesque... and a lot more scared about the women's rights and the separation of church and state.
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams

18th November 2009, 07:05 AM	#28
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 6,715	Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper Thanks, I feel a little less Palinesque... and a lot more scared about the women's rights and the separation of church and state. The abortion issue is not the only defect that I see in that lout Stupak. He does not belong in congress. He is part of a whackadoodle religious cult with plans to overturn constitutional law. Servants of the Harlot of Revelations, the lot of them, and they need to be run out of the halls of government. Stupak will quite probably be the first Democrat thrown under the bus by his own party in the next cycle. It would almost be worth running the risk of a seat going to a Republican, as long as the Republican believes in separation of church and state. Stupak is as classy as a ham and cheese sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah, and I hope he gets treated that way back home. I'm tired of his kind. He and that sleaze ball cult should all be investigated for tax fraud.

18th November 2009, 07:10 AM	#29
EverLastingGodStopper probably lurking Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Jersey, near Philly Posts: 185	I read in the news today that President Obama said he would veto any version of the health care bill that contains the Stupak language.
	__________________ "Nothing could be worse than the fear that one had given up too soon, and left one unexpended effort that might have saved the world." -Jane Addams

18th November 2009, 07:14 AM	#30
leftysergeant Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 6,715	Idiot boy Stupak thinks he has enough votes to stop all house action on the bill if it does not come out exactly as he wants it written. Time for that moron to go away. Maybe someone should call for an ethics probe on him and the rest of the C Street trash now, while we still have a country ruled by mundane laws, rather than the ranting of the superstitious whackjobs.