New Study Predicts Stupak Will Have Chilling Effect on All Abortion Coverage
Nov 18th, 2009 | 15 responses
A new study out from George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services concludes that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment will have an expansive effect on abortion coverage over the entire insurance industry, “eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange.”
More, the effect of the amendment on the private market over time is likely to extend to the “rider” coverage that amendment supporters point to as an alternative for women shut out of the exchanges, and even to employer-provided insurance coverage:
… the study finds that the supposed fallback option for impacted women–a “rider” policy that provides supplemental coverage for abortions only–may not even be allowed under the terms of the law. “In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling.”
The authors also note that though the direct impact of the Stupak amendment on women who receive insurance from their employers will be initially minimal, the provision’s tentacles could nonetheless reach into the employer-provided insurance market, too, “further driv[ing] the industry to shift away from current abortion coverage norms and toward product designs that meet exchange and Hyde Amendment requirements.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “New Study Predicts Stupak Will Have Chilling Effect on All Abortion Coverage”
Another good reason to stop trying to control the private market, and instead remove the laws that are strangling it.
I haven't read the entire report, but it seems that it's main point is that restricting federal tax-dollars from funding abortion will lessen the availability of abortion coverage because federally-funded health insurance coverage is greatly expanded by the bill, and is now large enough that the restriction will leak out into the private market as well.
Firstly, I stand by my previous statements that the amendment maintains the status quo of prohibiting federal tax-payer dollars from funding abortions. It does no more or less than that as I've argued expensively in previous threads, and I haven't seen anything in this report that contradicts that. To those who disagree, my challenge remains: write an amendment that maintains the status quo of no federal funding of abortion. If you can write one that satisfies that requirement, while restricting abortion less than the Stupak amendment, it's worthy of consideration.
However, neither do I disagree with the conclusion of the report in that it could mean, in effect, that coverage for abortion is less available (although I maintain that I don't see any reason why someone who wants abortion coverage would be unable to find it. As long as there is a market for it, insurers will provide it). But here's the important point: that is not because the Stupak amendment goes further than previous law on the subject. It is because the health care reform bill seeks to expand government-funded health care well beyond what existed previously.
The majority of Americans support the status quo that federal dollars should not be used for abortions. So the position that liberals would have conservatives and moderates take is this: “We don't support federal funding of abortions. But, if you want to pass a law that expands the role of federal funding in health care, well then it's OK to have federal funding of abortion.” Does that position make any sense? No.
Conservatives have argued (and over-stated their case for the most part) that this bill means that the government will be standing between you and your doctor. Liberals say this is nonsense, but ironically before the bill even becomes law, we have a case where the government is standing in between you and your doctor as a direct consequence of the government becoming more involved in the funding of health care (and the reasonable desire to maintain the same standards that existed before regarding federal funding for abortions).
“The majority of Americans support the status quo that federal dollars should not be used for abortions.”
True, and nothing controversial or newsworthy about it — those making a ruckus are extremists.
Note that this position is not only ordinary but consistent with what the Left has sought to various degrees and true extremes in the past, insofar as creating regulations or prohibitions or directions of one kind or another, whenever any amount of federal funding, direct or indirect, of any amount is concerned, such as with education: if a student gets even one penny of direct or indirect federal aid (student loans or subsidies for these, say), activists will say that educational instutions that these students attend should be subject to any and all demands the federal government chooses to make. The case of federal highway funds is long-standing and long-obvious.
“my challenge remains: write an amendment that maintains the status quo of no federal funding of abortion.”
The agitators (the best word for them) are too cowardly and dishonest to simply say they want to change this and to begin federal funding for abortions, and in fact to create a new federal entitlement to abortions.
Lost in this is the fact that this shouldn't be a federal entitlement and not a federal issue in any way whatsoever, but remain properly reserved to the states and localities to legislate as they see fit — the American constitutional federalist “solution,” in other words, politically incorrect and passe' as that is.
Background on state laws and policies, from Stateline as well as from Guttmacher:
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?s…
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/ind…
Did anyone see this part?”
“based on past experiences with claim administration decisions involving treatment exclusions, insurers can be expected to interpret the exclusion broadly, excluding coverage of not only most medically indicated abortion procedures but also treatments for serious illnesses, injuries, and medical conditions that include an abortion undertaken for health reasons.”
Take a moment to think about this, and just how “broadly” this exclusion might be. Not just for abortions, not just medically-necessary abortions, but also treatments for OTHER conditions that would include or necessitate an abortion in the process. For example, a woman who has cancer and is undergoing chemo and accidentally gets pregnant. If the insurance covers the chemo that may kill the fetus, they can interpret that as federally-funded abortion and deny coverage of the treatment.
“insurers can be expected to interpret the exclusion broadly”
Hysteria about abortion in this regard is unmerited (as well as self-demeaning). On the other hand, what you spotted is not much different than one of the more general inferences (the more important one to draw) from the revision of mammogram screening criteria recently made public. “Appropriateness” as well as legality will be as good an excuse for denial (if cost-cutting isn't admitted openly) as any other rationalization.
“hysteria”, huh? Do you know where that word comes from? Is your use of that word a joke or a pun or just an unthinking coincidence?
I take it you don't think that my having rights to control my own damn body or my own medical decisions are all that important; certainly nothing to get “hysterical” over. I actually do think these things are important, and it does anger me that your lack of a womb means that you have the priviledge of not giving two flips about what happens to the female population, and in fact call our worry over what's happening “hysteria”. Emotion is appropriate here, and your lack of it shows deep sociopathic problems, as we've discussed many times before.
“hysteria”, huh? Do you know where that word comes from?”
Its use here is appropriate, and is not an excuse for extremist-and-worse anti-male or related idiocy.
There is no “obligation” [sic] of any kind to create or have created a new federal abortion entitlement.
DLS — So…that's a “no” then. It's funny, if the word hadn't developed such a negative connotation and essentially changed meaning due to the common thinking that women are off their rockers, it would actually be pretty appropriate in this case — in fact one of the only appropriate uses. I know that I'm friggin' pissed the hell off over this, and that anger stems directly from my posession of a womb. We both know that's not what you meant though, don't we?
BTW, there is no “new” federal abortion entitlement being created or proposed. The current ability of women to get a legal and beneficial procedure that is currently covered under most health insurance plans is being taken away (that is, for all who are unable to pay for it — those who need it most). From my first comment on this thread, it looks like this bill could easily take away other medically-necessary and currently covered treatments from ALL women. Do you not understand that that is actually the case? And that it's perfectly rational for women to be angry about it?
Hi, Roro. I had more time and wanted to revisit this thread, as I feel I owe you more of an answer and attention to this and that.
“So…that's a 'no' then.”
Obviously not true, and you should know better than that. Are you still angry and overly emotional, or even hysterical? [grin] Revealing your innate female mature? (Do I have to do that to demonstrate the obvious?)
“I know that I'm friggin' pissed the hell off “
I know. I can tell.
“funny, if the word hadn't developed such a negative connotation …”
That its etymology is sexist (as is, for example, pre-1960s supposition underpinning psychology and a host of other subjects insofar as far as sex-role-based definitions of “normality” is concerned) in no way erases its common and customary use, which reveals (as with me, and with everyone else all of the time, as a practical or real-world matter) no sexism whatsoever, as no sexism exists. (It's even stretching things ridiculously to overreact, as at least one public official has, to the word “niggardly.”)
“[T]here is no “new” federal abortion entitlement being created or proposed”
The point is that the majority doesn't want one to be created, which is why Stupak isn't controversial (to the mainstream, at least — extremists and those especially devoted to related special interests view or react to it much differently, as we have seen).
“this thread, it looks like this bill could easily take away other medically-necessary and currently covered treatments from ALL”
I believe you're stretching. I've commented on something else, which involves a more general approach, but even then, the feared result (excuse for insurers not to pay for various treatments or therapies) will typically be on a piecemeal, on a specific basis. (That's whether or not future reviews of things for “appropriateness” grounds, or for conveyance of intent related to this involve specialists on the affected subjects or treatments or therapies.)
The real issue here is that there is no blanket, instant “right” to federally provided or assisted abortions, and it's obviously reasonable to include language in legislation to clarify and truly establish this condition, to allay concerns that it otherwise might be made into an entitlement (through equally or more creative interpretation of the meaning and intent of the legislation, or examples such as the earlier Capps amendment). It's also no surprise (or at least, shouldn't be) or concern that this legal clarification was made as a way to keep the public option alive as well as keep the legislative effort alive. (What isn't in the current legislation can be added later, so I'm puzzled why some are not only illogically angry and impatient, but willing to act against their own interests regarding the public option and health care “reform's” prospects in general.)
“The current ability of women to get a legal and beneficial procedure that is currently covered under most health insurance plans is being taken away (that is, for all who are unable to pay for it — those who need it most)”
Women who are unable to pay for abortion coverage, or pay for the abortion out of pocket, currently have no access to federal help to get the abortion. So nothing is changing in that respect.
With regards to the potential for the bill to lessen indirectly the availability of abortion, I agreed that that is a possibility. But what is causing it? What has changed that is bringing that about? The majority's opposition to federal funding for abortion has not changed. What has changed is that we are putting forth a law that drastically increases the role of federally funded health care. As opponents have been saying all along, when you increase the federal government involvement in the funding, it is inevitable that there will be conflicts such as this.
The author must be mistaken. After all, Obama has assured us time and again that everyone will be able to 'keep the coverage that they currently have”.
“What has changed is that we are putting forth a law that drastically increases the role of federally funded health care.”
I told people long, long ago that abortion would emerge as a hot political issue in its own right, once the scope of federal health care intervention included the child-bearing age range. Everybody, including all those in denial or who resented the unpleasant truth, was warned. Now we're seeing what was imminent.
“'keep the coverage that they currently have”
and “keep your current doctor” –
Oh, that wonderful, deft, creative art of omission.
It depends on the meaning and the context of what “current” is — not only now, but later. [grin]