A "Cut to the chase" poll...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Poll question: A "Cut to the chase" poll...

A "Cut to the chase" poll...

If the House bill as passed became law, ten years from now private insurance coverage of termination of pregnancy for reasons other than rape, incest and LIFE of the mother (not health) will be:

[mdmc]

1. reform will destroy the private sector

in 10 years we will only get what big brother says we can get..

[Beetwasher]

3. Are You For Real? So You Believe In Death Panels?

Or are you being sarcastic? Please, do tell. Are you really coming in here and propogataing bullshit rightwing talking points?

So you're OK w/ corporate big brother deciding what you get now?

[mdmc]

4. I would LOVE for it to destroy the private sector

we don't need the private sector, with their current death panels.

I would like a single payer system. I only support this lame ass bill as it will be a victory for Obama. If this was Palin's bill I would oppose it all out..

Peace and low stress..

[Beetwasher]

9. Got It, The Big Brother Comment Threw Me

I assume that was sarcastic? It's not always easy to tell.

[mdmc]

12. I find every single post on DU is either snark or sarcastic

DU has gotten so big, I just assume that if I don't know the DU'er, they are being sarcastic..
I am familiar with some posters, but not all. The few that I am familiar with are either radical leftist, Obamabots, or anti-progressive disruptors.

Peace Beetwasher.. peace and low stress..

[ClarkUSA]

10. The OP believes in "the baby-killing industry". He mentioned it in an OP he wrote yesterday.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8747423

[baldguy]

5. Big Brother is already making those decisions.

It's just that he works on Wall Street and calls himself a "insurance industry financial analyst".

[mdmc]

7. No, those are the owners of big brother

the corporatist..

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Ha! Either this has been freeped or I phrased it badly

There is no way private insurance coverage of abortion would become more common under the House bill as passed.

But I did a poll. I have to live with the results.

[customerserviceguy]

6. There are companies that offer this coverage

Why do you think they would fare poorly in the private insurance market?

When it comes to things that insurance companies cover, I would imagine this might be a lucrative market. For one thing, the cost of an abortion is not as high as many things they cover, they would likely not have to pay for multiple incidents (for one individual) in a year, and there are numerous ways of third-partying the costs.

I can see this developing along the same underwriting guidelines that are used for contact lens insurance, or cell phone replacement policies. I can see situations where the bluest states might pick up the cost of coverage for their residents, or it might be offered as one of a number of benefits in a cafeteria-style plan at work, or a woman might even ask a boyfriend to pay for it (at least in part) at the start of a committed relationship.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. The government will be *paying people money* to avoid choice-friendly policies

You can buy policy A (choice) or policy B.

If you buy policy B the government will give you $3,000.

Abortion coverage in base policies will go away. One could argue that supplemental private coverage will increase but almost nobody is going to buy supplemental insurance for something they do not expect to happen and that is not perceived as being prohibitively expensive if it does happen.

Whatever the increase in supplementals it cannot possibly offset the decrease in base-coverage.

There will be almost no private policies covering abortion except rape, incest, LIFE of the mother. (And, obviously, no public policies.)

That's my take.

[customerserviceguy]

13. I disagree that supplemental policies would cost much more

I haven't personally priced an abortion lately, but on other threads, I've seen cost estimates that run from $300-$1,200 or so. In the examples I've used, lost cell phones and other such devices cost somewhat less that that, but maybe I should have used pet insurance as a different example. There are companies that provide insurance for things that cost way more than abortion services, and they use underwriting standards that make it affordable for quite a few people.

Your arguments about people not buying supplemental insurance for something they do not expect to happen (if you are having sexual relations, and one of you is not medically infertile, then you should expect it to happen) that is not prohibitively expensive do not seem true, given the amount of supplemental policies issued in the marketplace for such incidents.

It could be argued that the cost of such policies will be high, because only people who consider themselves to be "high risk", if you'll pardon that phrase, will purchase the policies, and a large number of the policies will have claims. If that's true, then what the Stupek amendment is designed to do is prevent those costs from those most likely to be in the abortion services market from being passed on to everyone in general.

Healthcare reform is a bold, radical step for America, even if it isn't that way for the rest of the civilized world. If HCR is simply seen as a Trojan horse designed to provide free or very low cost abortions nationwide, it will fail. It's revolutionary enough to be able to have universal healthcare that will cover non-controversial costs, without getting bogged down with the side issues that come from covering treatments that do not enjoy nationwide acceptance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Push poll harder next time. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

8. If enough people are on the exchange for it to work then it would be less

Since such plans are prohibited from participation (though a supplemental could be offered).