Sen. McCaskill: the Abortion Prohibition is on the Insurance Plans not on Individuals

by: debcoop

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 15:38


Senator McCaskill is sadly wrong on what the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibits.  Even if she were right, it would still be a wound to the rights of women in this country. Even if the original Stupak amendment passed which only included the public option,  not the entire exchanges,  that would still have been the biggest blow for women since the original Hyde amendment.  Which has always been a vindictive piece of legislation aimed at the most vulnerable among us.  

The Hyde amendment is now a festering sore that has suppurated which will deprive American women of all kinds from the poor to middle and even upper class womwn, access to an essential reproductive rights.  

But the Senator's understanding is a misunderstanding of great proportions.  She is wrong.  The prohibition is not on individuals in the exchanges who buy plans but on the plans which GET subsidies.

Senator McCaskill said via the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...."

The majority of America now gets coverage from their employers who will be allowed to purchase on the exchanges.  

But she is very, very wrong on the mechanism for prohibiting abortion coverage.. She has it backwards.  Her misunderstanding is convenient perhaps because it allows her to proceed under the assumption that few people will be affected. Maybe that makes it better in her mind.

She is wrong.  Millions of women --now without insurance and even those now with it in the private market will be affected.  In a few years all women will be affected as employers are allowed to enter the exchanges.  No abortion coverage for anyone at all.

See David Dayen at Firedoglake

http://news.firedoglake.com/20...

The federal subsidies affect the plan, not just the individuals in the plan.  It is not just the individual who has subsides that can't get abortion coverage.  It is that any subsidy from anyone taints the entire plan. So any plan that gets subsidies from anyone at all can not offer abortion coverage.

debcoop :: Sen. McCaskill: the Abortion Prohibition is on the Insurance Plans not on Individuals
Any woman who now is getting some form of individual coverage - I am unsure of how the Cobra coverage would be classified -will not be able to get a plan that has abortion coverage. Anyone who is self employed - from attorneys, to real estate agents to consultants to a vast number of people who now HAVE coverage will have to go to the exchanges and lose the abortion coverage they have now.  It is not just the 47 million uninsured but the additional millions of people who have private coverage now.

Can you buy a plan separately without abortion coverage? The anti choice people say that. Not so.  It is a chimera. You won't be able to in the real world.  Why? Simple.

1. It is ridiculous to say that women plan ahead for unplanned pregnancies

2. In the exchange,  a plan supposedly may offer abortion coverage, but since they now have to take anyone who wants to buy it --irony of ironies -- they can NOT turn people down who have subsidies so they won't be able to offer abortion coverage.  It6 won't take them more than a minute to realize this so they won't offer them in the exchanges.

3. There will exist only 2 marketplaces - employer based plans or union plans are one and the exchanges are the other.  So they would have to create a plan outside of the exchanges and outside of employer based markets.  How and in what market can insurers sell plans that cover abortion?  There will no no such marketplace. Insurers don't put plans together that have no market ---that's capitalism.  

Only employer based plans that have no federal subsides can offer abortion coverage now.

The "Compassion" Exceptions are a Farce

As to the "compassion" of allowing coverage for "rape, incest, life of the mother",  note that HEALTH is not included.  So a large number of abortions for terrible late term conditions ---abortions that are horribly expensive, 10's of thousands of dollars --will NOT be covered.  Abortion where the mother's future fertility is at stake.  abortions for horrible fetal anomalies like anencephaly or hydrocephaly will not be covered for fetuses who will die moments from birth. In addition the life of the mother has been defined,  not a potential future death,  but an immediate death which will happen within hours or minutes as now defined by the Supreme Court.

D&C's for Incomplete Miscarriages are ABORTIONS.

Often when a miscarriage occurs, it is incomplete. The fetus and placenta are not fully expelled.  A D&C would then need to be performed by a doctor.  Medically that is classified as an abortion.  If these fetal remains are not removed by this "abortion",  then the women will develop an infection, which can either cause death, illness or destroy her future abilty to carry a child to term.  This coverage will now also be prohibited by Stupak-Pitts.

On a personal note my first 2 pregnancies were miscarriages with incomplete expulsion of fetal remains.  They required hospital stays and my insurance covered it.  My last pregancy did not go to term because the fetus had died in utero.  It was unplanned for despite using birth control, in the real world that happens, but nevertheless I was very happy about it. A sonogram showed ther was no heartbeat, but I was not miscarrying at all. I would need a D&C abortion.  I had a low grade fever for a week which was the toxemia caused by the fetal remains.  If I had not had the D&C, which again, medically is an abortion - I could have become ill or died.  In the last hour 2 other women have told me they too have had just such heartbreaking and potentially dangerous events.  Most women have been shamed into not sharing them with the world. That's one reason we can do this so blithely...We think it's other people's lives and sorrows, not our lives  or sorrows or anyone we know and love.


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
McCaskill (4.00 / 1)
just showed how anti-progressive she is.  

Even if she was right (4.00 / 4)
She is claiming it is ok to screw the poor woman as long as woman like her are legally protected.  What an asshole.

[ Parent ]
Also (4.00 / 3)
For poor women, if they need an abortion they will have to raise the funds.  This means the abortion will take place later than it otherwise would.  How many "pro-life" people want to length the time of gestation for performed abortions?

I hadn't heard of those medical issues you raised where fetus dies and/or naturally aborts.  That's huge.  I can't imagine anyone being against those procedures.


Some people (4.00 / 1)
really really hate us. I know it's hard to grasp at first but it's true.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
For sharing your personal story.  More and more women are doing so today, in response to this idiocy on Saturday night.

But for McCaskill to be so deliberately clueless is unfortunate.  Lucky for us this is early in the process, and I am sure pro-choice allies like NARAL and PP will be all over the Senate with threats to score the bill.  Right?

If Harry Reid brings the bill to the floor Stupakless, won't it require 60 votes to add Stupak?  Can they get that in the Senate?


they have to keep it out (0.00 / 0)
and at least on the house side, for the moment, they want to eliminate this in conference.

We'll see if it holds up.

I think the key is pressuring the president who has too long been a bystander.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
McCaskillis from MO (0.00 / 0)
MO is a state ranking 35th in education. It is a state run by people with a 35th rate education. Do I have to say anything else?

Well my advice is to take a courier flight to China and get an abortion there. (0.00 / 0)
Flying courier is cheap, medical care in China is cheap and abortion is legal and very much sanctioned by a country that is staring down over population in a realistic way.

Probably the cost for private abortion in the US would be about the same. Wait until the medical profession gets hit by outsourcing operations.

Go over the border to Mexico for serious dental work. Go to India for replacement surgery. Delhi.


I bet Mexico has abortion on demand that is affordable. We could start (0.00 / 0)
a movement for people to do that. Make appointments, transportation, organize it. Dentistry too. And other medical procedures. Many Americans go over the border to have work done and praise it. The waiting rooms are full of Americans so you can get immediate feedback from them before you are seen just by talking with them.

Bring the medical profession in cahoots with the insurance companies to their knees.


Most abortions are paid for with cash (0.00 / 0)
This is not true:
Medically that is classified as an abortion.
A D&C is not classified as an abortion (unless you are using the procedure to abort a live fetus).

And on an unrelated note I would urge anyone to call around and find a doctor who performs abortions and takes insurance. Its not going to be easy. Its practically impossible. Most abortions are cash only and done by the rare clinic or doctor.



USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox