• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Will the Stupak Amendment make any real difference?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,007
Location
Yokohama, Japan
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?
 
Puppycow said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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/send_a_coathanger/?r_by=6684-591424-7UvdEVx&rc=paste1
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

:)
 
boooeee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you read the OP?
 
Merko said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Puppycow said:
Did you read the OP?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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 :rolleyes:
 
boooeee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Puppycow said:
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.
Click to expand...


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".
 
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,

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 said:
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
Click to expand...
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_abortion/facts/access_abortion.html
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.
Click to expand...
 
INRM said:
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
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom