Catholic Bishops Want to “Help” Get Agreement from House Democrats to Use Senate HCR Bill to Effectively Ban Abortion
Mar 6th, 2010 | 56 responses
UPDATED
David Dayen flags this latest example of the Catholic Church working directly with legislators who want to make abortion completely unavailable to American women who cannot afford to purchase health insurance in the private market, which is of course the vast majority of American women:
Here’s an amazing little article from Politico.
The Roman Catholic bishops signaled Thursday that if agreement is reached with House leaders on anti-abortion language, the church would work to get the votes needed to protect the provisions in the Senate — and thereby advance the shared goal with Democrats of health care reform.
What are they talking about? Well, the bishops want the Stupak amendment, which would effectively end coverage of abortion services in all insurance markets over time.
Of course, the Senate bill already prohibits federal funds from paying for abortions, but that’s not enough for Stupak and the bishops:
No, the Catholic bishops want to show a measure of dominance over the US government, and they want their way on this. And they have convinced Stupak to reject the “third bill” strategy, which House leaders offered to him.
What they want to do is to put the changes to the abortion language in a reconciliation sidecar bill, the second bill. This ensures that it will get passed as part of the package, since the President and Senate leaders have already promised that the sidecar will become part of the agreement.
But wait, you say. Reconciliation is intended only for budget-related items. How could the Stupak amendment language on abortion survive the inevitable point of order on the Byrd rule? Well, the bishops want to break that rule, and get 60 votes from the Senate to waive the point of order.
[...]
The precedent of waiving the reconciliation point of order whenever the mood strikes would be potentially powerful for essentially ending the filibuster. But my suspicion is that, if it comes to this, waiving the rules to make allowances for the Catholic bishops to crusade against women would be seen as a one-time deal. “We HAD to do that,” you see, and it’s not applicable to anything, you know, progressive.If this actually happens – and if Pelosi has no other options to find the votes, I’ve little doubt that she’d at least explore it – you’ve basically ended the separation between church and state in this country.
UPDATE: Matt Miller at the Washington Post‘s PostPartisan blog (h/t Ezra Klein) makes an important point about Stupak’s willingness to block the Senate health care reform bill because, in his view, it does not do enough to keep federal dollars from paying for abortion coverage. It’s not federal funding for abortion coverage that Stupak is fighting — it’s federal funding for abortion coverage for poor women. “Sorry, Bart Stupak,” he points out:
[The] feds already subsidize abortions massively, via the giant tax subsidy for employer-provided care. Today the feds devote at least $250 billion a year to subsidizing employer-based coverage, a subsidy that skews incentives horribly (but which big business and big labor wouldn’t let the politicians touch this year). A Guttmacher Institute study says that 87 percent of typical employer plans cover abortion, and a Kaiser study found that 46 percent of covered workers had abortion coverage.
Ezra adds:
As I’ve written before, the Stupak amendment is as much about class as it is about choice. Imagine if Stupak attempted to expand his campaign to the coverage employed women receive. It would, after all, be the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it wouldn’t have a chance. That group is too large and too affluent and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch its access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange are a much easier target.
56 Responses to “Catholic Bishops Want to “Help” Get Agreement from House Democrats to Use Senate HCR Bill to Effectively Ban Abortion”
I think they should be more worried about their child molesting priests than non-believers getting abortions.
I am sure Catholics are tired of hearing it, but it happened and we would be naive to believe that it has stopped.
So a majority of women cannot afford health insurance? Where is the evidence? I don't know of any at all that supports your assertion.
PJBFan wrote: “Where is the evidence?”
It's HERE!
Citing Wikipedia regarding the wage gap is not credible evidence. Show me actual studies that show that a majority of women cannot afford health insurance, and I will believe you. However, Wikipedia is not a credible source. Regarding the wage gap, you will get no dispute from me that that exists; however, that does not prove to me that women cannot afford health insurance. I dispute that a majority, let alone a vast majority, of women cannot afford health insurance.
PJBFan wrote: “Citing Wikipedia regarding the wage gap is not credible evidence.”
It was nice talking with you.
Your citations regarding the wage gap are irrelevant. No dispute exists in this corner regarding the existence of the wage gap. However, what I asked for is credible citation that a majority, let alone a vast majority, of women cannot afford health insurance.
If you pulled your head out of whatever orIfIce it is lodged in you would not be so ignorant.
No dispute exists in this corner regarding the existence of the wage gap.
That is disputed in this corner.
dear COMMENTERS
please do not attack each other. Just because one commenter demands whatever on whichever post, no one has to respond. This is your place for debate and discussion with civility, not repeated badgering or name calling.
The article is about Catholic Bishops. Just my two cents' worth, I wonder exactly who those bishops are by name, as we know some are far meet with politicos far more than others. I also wonder about the 501.c.3 churches carry. Mine says no political lobbying or else non-profit/ tax free status is lost. There seems much to discuss on the post's topic in addition to asking the person who actually wrote that women experience disparity in gaining health insurance, to clarify.
Thanks,
dr.e
Wow, that's a good point. You've really led me to reconsider my views.
Now consider this: By the same logic SteveK has used to demonstrate that women can't afford health insurance, we can conclude that they most certainly can't afford cars, either. Well, except for the Volvo S40, apparently.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/sep20…
dr.e,
As your “please do not attack each other” was most certainly aimed at “imavettoo” I must say I do, partially, agree with you. “imavettoo”'s language is a bit course BUT he does have a point. For anyone to claim that women have the same ability/resources as men to buy health insurance is at best an ignorant statement.
For those who don't comprehend this to be a problem maybe you should go out and buy a Volvo.
PS – I'm glad that I didn't give imavettoo a “like” as I'm in enough trouble with tidbits already.
You are so awesome. And I had to laugh when I saw PJB's response: I knew he would renege on his promise to believe you!
I have to say I do find it interesting the way threads evolve and spread (for example this one going from abortion funding to equal pay issues).
I also found the link from Dr J to be interesting. I do think there is a wage gap between men and women so it was a surprise to me to learn that unmarried women actually earn, on average, more than unmarried men. I'd like to see more documentation on that topic but it's always fun to have your assumptions challenged.
I'm of somewhat mixed opinion on the topic in general. I'm personally very strongly pro life in terms of what I would advise anyone who asked my opinion but I am moderately pro choice in saying that is a topic which, at least to some degree, belongs to the individual to decide.
As to public funding I can certainly see how even some who support abortion rights might be reluctant to have government funding get involved but I have issues with saying that the funds couldn't even be used to buy an insurance plan that provides coverage.
So as is often the case I see merit on both sides of the debate.
As to the topic at hand, certainly I think there is some logic in saying that someone who earns less is less able to afford many things, but it doesn't really touch on the questions about the statement that the 'vast majority' of women are unable to afford any health insurance.
Indeed if you assume that the probability is that single women would be the ones most likely to buy coverage on their own (as opposed to a married woman who would be buying it with her husband) then if the stats saying unmarried women earn more than unmarried men would suggest they are more able to afford it.
So I am not denying that there are some women, especially single ones, who could not afford to buy health insurance on their own, I don't think it is fair to say the vast majority could not. Indeed I suspect even most women (and men) who get coverage via their employer pay something for the coverage, so unless the vast majority of women currently have no insurance I don't know the argument stands.
As always however I am appreciative to Kathy for giving me a topic to stretch my neurons a bit.
Kathy, first off, I never said I would believe SteveK. Secondly, he provided nothing relevant to answer my question.
That being said, as much as I believe that women who have non-therapeutic (relating only to physical health) abortions should be imprisoned for murder, and that doctors who perform non-therapeutic (relating only to physical health) abortions should be imprisoned as well, I favour removing the tax exemption from any diocese of the Catholic Church where the Bishop signed off on this.
There seems much to discuss on the post's topic in addition to asking the person who actually wrote that women experience disparity in gaining health insurance, to clarify.
It did not occur to me, when I wrote this post, that there would be any lack of clarity on the issue of private health insurance being prohibitively expensive. I thought that everyone knew about the 45 million uninsured Americans. If I had had any idea that some readers might want me to provide evidence that most Americans (which, last I checked, includes women) cannot afford to purchase private health insurance on their own, I would have made a greater effort to try to explain the point.
The Volvo S40 has a sticker price of around $24,000… $6,000 less then the “average new car cost”
What does the average car cost today?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_average…
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/11/17/1…
Wow… I must have a really cheap car….. I paid about half the 'average new car cost'
LOL so much for the stereotype….
You are now incorrectly stating the argument made by PJBFan, who challenged Kathy Kattenburg's reference to:
“…American women who cannot afford to purchase health insurance in the private market, which is of course the vast majority of American women…”
This assertion of hers is refuted by the very statistics she herself quotes, that there are about 50 million (actually, at most 46 million) uninsured people in the US (a figure that has been ably challenged by Jazz Shaw here, btw:
http://themoderatevoice.com/44210/those-forked-… )
Now let's run a reality check on KK's sweeping assertion of fact. If half the US population is female, that works out to about 154 million females of all ages. But KK's assertion was about “women,” so we need to subtract girls from this figure. And it's also a statement about being able to buy private insurance, so we need to omit all women over 65, who are eligible for Medicare. Assuming that the proportion of women who are between 18 and 64 today is the same as it was at the time of the last census, there are about 94 million adult women under age 65 in the US. So even if *every single one* of the 47 million asserted uninsured were a woman between 18 and 64 (which we know is not true), even then KK's statement would be false (50% falls well short of anyone's idea of a “vast majority”). Needless to say, an actually tally of uninsured women, instead of the absurd overestimate I have made, would make clear just how far from reality the assertion in question is.
No… but your attempted segue is very entertaining.
The comment you replied to simply nullifies, via your link, your inference that women buying Volvo's 'prove' that they have money.
Nice try.
It seems that the median household income is a little over $52K, whereas the average costs of health insurance with an employer plan for a family of four is a little over $13k. I can only imagine the cost of a non-employer plan. How many people can actually afford to spend 25% of their family's pre-tax income on health insurance?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health…
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-565-million-hous…
With regards to church interference…. The Catholic Church should lose their tax exempt status. The Church should tend to the spritual needs of it's congregants, and not be worrying about others who have neither asked for the Church;s help nor care for the Church's religious views.
If the Catholic Church had their way, we would all be Catholics and governed by Church law…. against our wills.
Foolishly, I'll try this one last time.
The proposition is that “a vast majority of women cannot afford private health insurance.”
Your argument in support of that claim is that women, on average, earn less than men. That is a non sequitur, because it does not establish that the majority of women's earnings are so low that they cannot afford health insurance.
My point about cars is that a lot of single women seem to be able to afford rather nice new cars. By implication, they ought also to be able to afford lots of other things, including health insurance.
Finally, if you don't understand why a demonstration that it is statistically impossible for a “vast majority” of women to be unable to afford health insurance when an upper-bound estimate of the total number of uninsured does not constitute a vast majority of women, then it is pointless to engage you in conversation.
removed by author
As in the case of cars, what insurance costs depends on how much you want. A single 40-year-old female in Los Angeles could get reasonable coverage from Anthem Blue Cross for $124 per month ($2,500 deductible, 30% copay). On the other hand, a gilt-edged no-deductible, no-copay plan would cost her $347 per month, or something on the order of the monthly payments on an inexpensive car like the Volvo S40.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/individual…
The reason employer-provided plans are so expensive is primarily that they are a form of tax-exempt compensation, so people tend to buy policies that aren't so much simple insurance as they are prepaid medical and dental care.
Thanks for the blast of common sense, Stockboy. I'm always forgetting what a rare commodity that is, these days.
Your argument in support of that claim is that women, on average, earn less than men. That is a non sequitur, because it does not establish that the majority of women's earnings are so low that they cannot afford health insurance.
I don't know about SteveK, but MY argument in support of my claim that the vast majority of American women cannot afford to purchase health insurance on their own, on the private market, is because the vast majority of Americans, period, of both genders, cannot afford to purchase health insurance on their own, in the private market.
The link you provided is not very helpful, because it comes from your bookmarks or favorites, and does not actually have any information on it relating to health insurance costs.
It IS worth noting, however, that a policy with a $2,500 deductible is not going to be helpful for anything except catastrophic care. It's also worth pointing out that even $347 a month seems very low to me, and your example of a “40-year-old female in Los Angeles” is not very helpful since health insurance costs vary significantly from state to state, and also since health insurance companies have so many exclusions based on health history. For example, pregnancy is now considered a “pre-existing condition” on many health insurance policies, so even if a woman had a policy that covered abortion, she would probably be denied it on the basis that her pregnancy is a pre-existing condition.
Finally, if you don't understand why a demonstration that it is statistically impossible for a “vast majority” of women to be unable to afford health insurance when an upper-bound estimate of the total number of uninsured does not constitute a vast majority of women, then it is pointless to engage you in conversation.
This, again, addressed to SteveK, misses the point. When I said the vast majority of women cannot afford to purchase private insurance, that is not just women who are currently uninsured that I'm talking about. Most Americans get health insurance coverage through their employers, and those women would not be affected by the Stupak amendment. That was the entire point of my post, which has gotten totally lost in this side argument. The federal government would continue to subsidize abortions for women who have health insurance policies through their employers; it's only poor women, and women who have lost their jobs and thus their insurance as well, who would be denied coverage for abortion under the Stupak anti-abortion language.
My statement that most women, as most Americans in general, can not afford to buy health insurance on their own, directly from a private insurer — at the very least, not any kind of policy that would actually cover anything — was and is accurate.
Remember, the House must pass the exact same bill that the Senate passed. It cannot be changed. If it were changed, it would have to go to a conference committee and then go back to each body for re-passage.
So, if the Senate bill is what the House is going to vote on, Stupak and the Bishops cannot change even one comma.
SteveK,
You are in no trouble with me as I tried to make clear in a prior comment. To the extent that I was personally offended, it is over.
As to the substance of this thread, it appears that much energy is being committed to a side issue that is only tangentially related to the subject of the article.
That practical considerations, in this case affordability, should result in tens of millions of citizens being unable to exercise what has been determined to be a constitutional right is not an acceptable result. That something is a constitutional right, as abortion has been determined to be, means that every woman has the *right*, regardless of income, to exercise that option. If their are women who cannot exercise that option, it ceases to be a right and becomes an economic privilege.
For certain leaders of a religious organization to engage in legislative activity in an attempt to abridge a constitutional right contravenes the principles of separation of church and state, and as others have noted, contravenes the IRS regulations for not-for-profit institutions regarding legislative activity.
Even with all the subtle (and not-so-subtle) smacks at one another in this thread, there are a couple of interesting tidbits.
The sweeping assertion about “the vast majority of women” in the original post sent everything in a different direction, but it's absolutely fair to challenge such a statement. Personally, I think there are far too many variables to make a case for, or against, this assertion. Reading the article linked by SteveK, it appears to be married women's wages with the biggest disparity — which brings us into the realm of family policies, and combined buying power. We're way off in the weeds.
It's unfortunate that the post author threw such a red herring into the mix, because it drove the post totally off point — and it's really hard to argue against the real problem here: If Stupak (et al) and the Bishops get their way, the impact will be on the poor disproportionately.
This is not to say, though, that poor women would never be able to get abortions. If the government-sponsored / funded programs disallow elective abortion, there can and should be private funding available to assist them. Since I'm pro-choice within certain parameters, I'd absolutely direct some of my personal giving in such a direction.
Bottom line on the Bishops, though — American policy directed from Rome just make my hackles stand up, all the way around.
David Dayen flags this latest example of the Catholic Church working directly with legislators who want to make abortion completely unavailable to American women who cannot afford to purchase health insurance in the private market, which is of course the vast majority of American women
Sorry to stray from the Catholic angle, but access to abortions is not dependent solely on insurance as many women pay for the procedure directly. According to Planned Parenthood the cost of a first trimester abortion ranges around $350-900. I know this is a lot of money for a low-income family but I am familiar with two low-income women in my town that paid directly for their abortions. I would also note that the cost of the actual procedure is less than many private insurance yearly deductibles these days.
The implication that lack of insurance somehow would make abortion “completely unavailable” is an exaggeration.
Kathy, you're welcome.
chip, “As in the case of cars, what insurance costs depends on how much you want.”
Yes, I understand that. I wanted to see what a typical plan might cost and compare that to what the average family makes just to give some perspective.
I didn't even go into the costs of a plan for someone who needed private coverage with a pre-existing condition, and you may not even be able to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, which really goes against my sensibilities. I really find it incredible that health insurance companies deny coverage to those who most need it. It's rather like selling car insurance to people without cars, and refusing to sell car insurance to those with cars, the idea being that those without cars woon't get into accidents, whereas people with cars will get into accidents and cause the car insurance people to pay out money.
At any rate, everyone should have some sort of health insurance. Cars are optional, health is not.
Here comes the hot political issue again, complete with wacko left baggage that always accompanies it.
[yawn] Dimmies, work out your little problems among yourselves. You're chumps if you can't.
“a vast majority of women cannot afford private health insurance”
Nonsense. Women and men are paying much more than they would like (for much more than true insurance, i.e., catastrophic coverage only), but that's a separate issue altogether.
It also, of course, does not justify creation of a new federal abortion entitlement.
Note that the problem with the Dems' overreach right now is not limited to abortion with the lefty wacko political problems, but lies in wanting to create new federal entitlements to many people, rather than correctly limiting what is sought to insurance reform and existing entitlement reform and nothing else. Given that the Dems are so desperate they must resort to reconciliation, they have to go with the Senate bill and unfortunately, abortion now becomes the problem it always was destined to be once federal entitlements got extended to girls and women capable of becoming pregnant. At this point the Dems need to ignore the wackos and just get the House Dems to compromise or temporarily concede as best they can to get the legislation advanced through the process, if they're serious about succeeding at getting it passed eventually. How hard is it for them to understand and simply do that? Chumps…
As to the substance of this thread, it appears that much energy is being committed to a side issue that is only tangentially related to the subject of the article.
But g.c, they were all forced to do that because I used the phrase “vast majority” to describe the number of American women who would not be able to afford to pay for private insurance. Had I said “majority” or “most” or even “many, many, many” our dear OCD-affected TMV-ers would not have been so aggressively and unceremoniously compelled to change the subject.
I need to be scourged of this damnable sin.
“I really find it incredible that health insurance companies deny coverage to those who most need it.”
I've had a pre-existing condition for thirty years and am familiar with being laughed off the phone or out of the office when applying, having to pay huge rates, having all kinds of riders and exclusions, etc.. There now is the problem of the risk pools becoming more costly and less affordable. (This is what the childish lefties neglect with Anthem and other cases right now.) There is a vicious circle or cycle in effect, where the more expensive the high-risk pools get, the more likely the younger and healthier people will leave the pools, making them even more expensive for those who remain. (There was a similar problem decades ago in California with the high-risk auto insurance pool. Many normal people were foregoing regular kinds of insurance because the high-risk pool was cheaper! Claims were so high that insurers wanted a big rate increase, and Roxani Gillespie fought against this, because if the rates went much higher, there would be an increase in people who found them unaffordable and simply drove without insurance in California instead, and she wanted to reduce the problem of uninsured motorists.) Reforming the pools as well as the individual market (a problem for healthy people, too, who don't happen to have employer-based health insurance) should have been the primary object of reform and legislative attention, not bubble-brained dreams of new federal entitlements for all new classes of people in addition to Medicare and Medicaid now.
Now the Dems have dug their hole, and it's their job to climb out of it — if they can, or have the will.
You are our problem, DLS. What solution would you suggest?
Kathy,
” I need to be scourged of this damnable sin.”
Would it help if I talked to a Bishop about offering you absolution?
“DLS. What solution would you suggest?”
Hi, Kathy. What I “suggest” is what I see as necessary, given that it's essential the Dems make progress.
Stupak and the others not as highly in the news are going to be have to be made to concede on this, to vote for this bill that few in the House like anyway, but have to vote for as-is because of the requirements of the reconciliation process, and they merely join the other House members in holding their noses but doing what they can to get Congress moving again. Otherwise, it's up to Pelosi to secure enough votes to ensure passage even if Stupak (and others like him) can't be made to change their mind.
It should be possible — nobody likes this bill, they're all holding their noses, but once they set the precedent of any new entitlements, they're on their way and they can always correct or add to the laws later, and in fact that's what I would expect them to do.
Pelosi must work around the Stupaks, or get them to agree to vote Aye on this because IT IS A FORMALITY.
Also, Kathy,
“What solution would you suggest?”
If you're asking about the content of the legislation itself rather than how the Dems can get past their current problem, I would say that the legislation should be limited only to reform and remedy of known existing federal entitlements. Do not create any new federal entitlements. This particularly avoids hot issues like abortion. (It's impossible to avoid that issue forever, but it could be avoided for now, at least.)
The problem here is just what the Dems want. Do they also want accomplished fact, a precedent for new federal entitlements? They're risking too much by seeking too much.
I'm against federal encroachment into what are correctly state and local issues here. Insurance is at the state level, with state insurance commissions. Obama and Sibelius had no business doing the sub-50-IQ appeal to the childish, getting angry about insurance rates and wanting to intrude and impose price controls and other nonsense.
I'm against the Congressional legislation establishing regulations on insurance, and there's still a strong question if this is legitimate legally (it isn't, ethically) as something with which reconciliation is misused. In both cases I'm accepting these as possible future accomplished facts now, largely — it's what the Dems want to do and it's what they _need_ to do in order to get past the GOP obstruction (which the Dems are making more necessary by doing this). At this point the problem is totally with the Dems, again — how they will manage to decide among themselves to proceed or not to proceed(!).
It's a given that federal insurance regulation reform is likely (and indeed, it's federal antitrust law that is part of what's sought). I'd also not object to correcting problems like the Medicare “doughnut hole” everybody hates, for example. But I and the majority start getting uptight when more, unneeded, things are added. A good number of items in the legislation have strong public support; doing more, and doing things the way the Dems have this past year are what makes the public jittery and rejectionist.
It's too late to modify the bill, if I am correct, so now the issue is, can the Dems get passage of this bill.
Selling health insurance to someone with a preexisting condition is not at all like selling car insurance to someone with a car. It's like selling collision coverage to someone who's just had an accident.
There's a simple way to avoid the preexisting condition problem, and that's to buy your health insurance before you need health care. Just the way you buy your car insurance before you have an accident.
I completely agree with your statement that “everyone should have some sort of health insurance.” Since basic coverage is so comparatively cheap, I think everyone should be sure to buy some right away. And if you're thinking of responding by citing those who are too poor to afford basic coverage, then we'd be getting closer to a useful discussion of how to insure the very poor without reengineering the entire health-care industry.
“Here comes the hot political issue again, complete with wacko left baggage that always accompanies it. [yawn] Dimmies, work out your little problems among yourselves. You're chumps if you can't.”
You just can't ever debate without your insults, can you? I know what I was taught about such people. You probably were too.
“There's a simple way to avoid the preexisting condition problem, and that's to buy your health insurance before you need health care. Just the way you buy your car insurance before you have an accident.”
Wrong. I'm going to give you the “too young to know” allowance here. After 10 years on my current insurance policy, Anthem decided to “phase out” the plan (as can any insurer at any time). They do so by chasing everyone out of the plan (35% premium increase 3 years in a row will certainly do that). Surprise! Now you get the rate on your new plan set according to your CURRENT pre-existing conditions, not the ones 10 years ago.
So sorry (believe me, I am) but you cannot trust the insurance policy you buy now to protect you later.
God bless and keep the bishop — far away from me.
Now, to return to the actual post topic, abortion is a legal medical procedure. Insurance companies are private businesses. If they can sell a policy that covers abortion, it is their right to do so. Talk about federal overreach. Now conservatives want to dictate what legal products a private business can sell? Want it illegal? MAKE it illegal if you can. But these sleazy backdoor attempts are deplorable. And Catholic bishops? They can go straight to hell. I have a dear friend who was repeatedly sexually abused by a priest as a child. The church shuffled this monster from parish to parish rather than turn him in as they should have. Screw their pathetic attempts to convince us they have any moral authority, especially about children.
That's a fair point. You're among those who were foresighted enough to buy their own insurance, and it undoubtedly feels like you're being treated unjustly. But for purposes of public policy discussion, it would be important to know how often this tactic is used, and by how many insurers. Then we'd have some idea of how big a problem this is and how it could best be remedied. Most of what I've seen in this sorry health-care “debate” is an endless series of dueling anecdotes (horror stories about private insurers vs. tales of dereliction in nationalized health systems) and bogus facts.
According to my insurance broker, ALL companies do it all the time. Here's why. They launch a product. It's popular. The customer base of the product ages as the insurer launches and pushes “new products” to new customers. Pretty soon they have more young healthy people in the newer products. So they discontinue the old policies by pricing them out of existence. Of course they can't help but notice that their existing customers under those policies are applying for a “new” policy. So they assess them as if they were new customers.
American women who cannot afford to purchase health insurance in the private market, which is of course the vast majority of American women
Not if I understand the word “right” correctly. If I understand what you're saying, then poor people should be able to get guns, regardless of income, because otherwise the right to bear arms would be an economic privilege. Am I missing something?
Good point, Prof. Shall I compound my foolishness by attempting to rationalize my prior comment or simply eat crow?
Mmm, tasty, this crow.
“to buy your health insurance before you need health care”
Don't worry, GD, I can handle this best (without nastiness — your admonitions are noted and filed).
I have had a pre-existing condition known since 1980, which is exposed during review of any medical history or which is unconvered during routine blood testing done at normal checkups. There's no way those of us with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance as a routine or in a confident way under the current system — my history is one of routine complete rejections, exhorbitant high-risk-pool-style rates, or all kinds of riders and exclusions. The individual insurance market is where most and where the worst of the problems are in the health insurance market and system today, along with problems the state governments have with their high risk pools. (You'll know it's worse when _they_ start tightening eligibility criteria and rejecting applicants.)
There is no way many of us who have pre-existing conditions or a history of, say, surgery can get insurance before we get “sick” — as part of pre-natal tasks our parents would have to face before we are born, I'm afraid. Try again, Chip Silicon.