They won't even be given the option to pay for that coverage with their own money. [Citation Needed]

[USArmyParatrooper]

A thread blasting Obama made the rec list (of course) charging that Obama is attacking a woman's right to choose.

It linked in the thread this article:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/02/days-summer-obama-deliversdeath-blow-vulernable-women

In the Dog Days of Summer, Obama Delivers a Death Blow to Vulnerable Women

So poetic! The editorial goes on to make this charge -

"The HHS regulations mean that women won't be allowed to obtain
abortion coverage through the new high-risk insurance pools
beyond limited cases (rape, incest, endangering the life of the
woman). They won't even be given the option to pay for that
coverage with their own money. We can't let this decision stand."

That is simply NOT true. In keeping with the requirements of the health care bill and Federal law, the high risk pools simply won't cover abortion. There is absolutely nothing stopping women in high risk pools from paying out of pocket for an abortion. It has been known all along that the health care bill will not pay for abortions with federal money except in the cases listed above. The restriction applies entirely to what the high risk pool covers, NOT to what women in those pools decide to do outside their coverage. If I'm wrong, show me. Don't show me someone else making the same claim, show me the actual wording that includes a ban on women paying for one themselves.

If you're angry because you think Federal funds should be used to cover all abortions then by all means, argue your case. But don't act like all of the sudden this is something new. And don't just make shit up to be "angry" about.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. As long as the woman is well off, there is no problem whatsoever.

[maryf]

8. almost anyone

can afford a hanger...an medical abortion is exhorbitant and only poor women are penalized...

[sandnsea]

11. Same as for women in the military, medicaid, medicare

This has been the case for something like forty years. Where was all the outrage so teen girls could get coverage from SCHIP for instance?

[JuniperLea]

14. Federal funds have never paid for abortions...

And only 46% of secular, corporate run health care cover them as of last year.

I do believe this has been framed to cause people to think they aren't getting something they ordinarily would be getting.

I don't think this is right... I think all women should be eligible for birth control, which would lower the number of abortions needed overall. And I do believe that the Federal regulations prohibiting Federal funds from paying for abortions should be repealed. I don't get to earmark my tax dollars, nor should anyone else. If that were the case, I would refuse to pay for war.

Fortunately, here in So Cal, we have many, many free clinics and planned parenthood clinics. I've never known anyone to actually pay for an abortion.

[uppityperson]

31. I agree with what you write, good explanation, until the last sentence for here

Thank you for the succinct explanation about the framing and it isn't right.

[JuniperLea]

36. It does point to what CA is doing right...

And other states should follow... but ultimately, we need to fight the Fed on this. I don't get to tell them where my tax dollars go... neither should anyone else. They don't want to pay for these kids once they are born either. They just want all people who don't fit their mold to die I guess.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[USArmyParatrooper]

4. self delete

wrong post

[Oregone]

6. "As far as a rider policy"

Another question: Will women considered "high-risk" be able to, without undue financial duress, be able to purchase a private-market abortion rider?

[Oregone]

3. A request for clarification...

I don't know the ins and outs of this whole shebang.

But you quoted: "They won't even be given the option to pay for that coverage with their own money"

And refuted it with: "There is absolutely nothing stopping women in high risk pools from paying out of pocket for an abortion"

But, is paying for a procedure the equivalent to paying for coverage that will cover an abortion.

If not, then it would seem that your refutation is erroneous and falls on its face. With that said, can they not purchase a rider policy (actual coverage)?

[USArmyParatrooper]

7. I haven't seen any restrictions on a rider policy

The services provided by the high risk pools won't cover abortion. (shock!) Thus, they can't pay for coverage through the pool to pay for elective abortion.

As far as a rider policy I don't see how the restriction would apply to those since they rely on a private insurer outside of the high risk pools.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/29/1752837/high-risk-health-insurance-pools.html

To make the plans more affordable, the regulations said that premiums in the new pools cannot exceed the average "standard" rate in the individual insurance market. Existing state high-risk pool premiums vary — with some having rates more than double those in the individual market. States had set higher rates for their existing high risk pools so that they wouldn't compete with plans in the private market.
_____


These high risk pools didn't exist before the HCR bill. So how exactly is this an "attack" on vulnerable women?

[Oregone]

10. So you did make a mistake in your OP, correct?

Equating coverage with paying out of pocket? Right?


"So how exactly is this an "attack" on vulnerable women?"

Well, would you happen to know how much a private abortion rider costs on the private market for a woman considered "high-risk"? Can *ANY* women buy one or can some be denied? Are they also bound by the health care legislation (no rescission, out of pocket limits, etc)?

I don't know those things. Do you? If you are going to promote private market riders as a reasonable solution to women not being covered in the high-risk pool, I'm curious if you know the cost of this solution and the regulations pertaining to them.

And I will add a value judgment that the solution of making vulnerable women pay more for reasonable & necessary coverage is a crock

[USArmyParatrooper]

15. Let's start from this point...

Will you admit that these high risk pools that didn't exist before do nothing to restrict a woman's right to choose?

What option do these women have now that these pools take away?

[uppityperson]

18. They do restrict the right to chose, but this is not new. However, since the insurance

covers most everything else, I think it should cover abortions. It continues to limit women's right to chose by making them pay out of pocket.

[USArmyParatrooper]

35. I don't think you see what I'm getting at.

Just because the pools don't assist women in getting abortions doesn't mean it restricts them.

[Oregone]

38. Unless you consider financial constraints as a restriction

I mean...really...what was the point of health care reform? Anyone could of paid for heart surgery out of pocket....

:)

[USArmyParatrooper]

43. Give me a scenario where a woman is more restricted with the pools then without

Better to violate federal law so the insurance pools inevitably get tied up in court?

[Oregone]

46. "doesn't mean it restricts them" isn't the same point as "more restricted"

In one post, you are claiming this women have no restriction by being in the pool. After my response, you want me to show how they aren't more restricted than the status quo.

It would seem this last post concedes there is in fact a restriction, which contradicts the previous post of yours.

Interesting.

[USArmyParatrooper]

52. Playing symantics isn't interesting. It's old

The way I see it there are three possibilities here.

1: It can assist women with abortions.

2: It can neither hinder, nor restrict women from having abortions.

3: It can restrict women from having abortions.

So, are you saying there's no such thing as an option 2?

[Oregone]

56. If you cannot make a consise, clear, coherant argument, what do you expect anyone to do?

"So, are you saying there's no such thing as an option 2? "

No, but Im saying that this option is not what we are dealing with. If the law creates conditions that impart financial constraints on women seeking abortions, then it is restrictive. It may not be moreso than the old system, but it is nonetheless. With that said, in another sub-thread, I am discussing with you the "political morality" (if you will) of recognizing injustice and being unwilling to change it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

64. So if there's an option 2...

Give me an example. You seem to be of the mind that if it doesn't assist then it restricts. But you say otherwise so what would you have considered something that neither restricts or assists?

[Oregone]

69. I'm of the mind that its not worth discussing, as its not applicable to this scenario

The financial constraint on women seeking abortions is restrictive in its very nature.

[USArmyParatrooper]

78. In other words you don't have an answer

You're essentially saying if it doesn't assist it restricts. True or false?

[Oregone]

80. Im saying this specific law creates a financially restriction, and is thereby restrictive

[USArmyParatrooper]

85. The law that you haven't denied Obama didn't make can't possibly change

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

What's your plan for getting the law changed in this Congress.

[Oregone]

88. "can't possibly change"

You can amend the constitution, but you cannot change this law? Are you sure about that? Can you link to the legislation that prevents such a change?

[USArmyParatrooper]

91. Amend the Constitution? Sure, that only requires a 2/3 vote. Yeah, that's feasible

Next?

[Oregone]

96. Its not impossible. Its been done before. But changing this law isn't possible.

You said it yourself. Why is that? What grounds do you have to make this claim?

Are you just making things up?

Is this ENTIRE thread a long-winded, knee-jerk, reactionary defense of Obama.

Is it?

After all these posts...wouldn't it of been easier to just post:

LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

[JuniperLea]

107. Do you understand the difference...

Between feasible and possible? Likely and unlikely? Serious conversation and asshatery?

[Oregone]

110. To quote the poster I am replying to: "can't possibly change"

They never suggested that its not politically feasible to attempt to fight this injustice, but that it was rather impossible (and therefore, pointless & not expedient).

[JuniperLea]

116. Read again...

He said Obama can't possibly change it... and he can't. Further, the poster went on to explain to you why Obama can't change it.

[Oregone]

119. A president can't possible directly change most law. For the love of God....

How much are we supposed to confine our language to satisfy your inability to extrapolate?

He can surely contribute to an effort--even spearhead one--to change it.

[JuniperLea]

122. For the love of god... read your own posts... eom

[uppityperson]

41. They do restrict women from getting abortions, same as before

Not having abortions be paid for by insurance restricts women to paying for them, to those who can pay for them or find a free clinic. However, this is nothing new, it is as it was before. It continues to restrict them.

[USArmyParatrooper]

45. OK, we do agree on something

The insurance pools neither assist nor further restrict a woman's choice to have an abortion. If you don't like it work to change the laws prohibiting Federal funds from covering abortion. I'm sure the Republican's won't filibuster.

[uppityperson]

48. I am working to change that and wish my congress & president had done so

"I'm sure the Republican's won't filibuster." hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa

So, you are saying that congress and Pres Obama COULD have done this but chose not to? I think that is what many who are upset over this are also saying.

[USArmyParatrooper]

53. "I'm sure the Republican's won't filibuster." Should have been obvious to you was sarcasm

So no, I'm not saying President Obama or ANY President could have changed the law.

[Oregone]

58. "I'm not saying President Obama or ANY President could have changed the law"

Could he do anything to contribute to the law being changed?

[USArmyParatrooper]

61. Such as?

[Oregone]

72. So Obama can not contribute to an effort to change this law?

Is that a correct or incorrect statement?

[USArmyParatrooper]

75. Give me an example

You asked if he can "do anything" to contribute to the law being changed. Do anything such as?

What is your plan for getting the law passed through this Congress?

[Oregone]

79. Could he publicly encourage lawmakers to table the bill?

Could he draft the initial bill personally and hand it to a primary sponsor in Congress (its been done before).

Is there NOTHING Obama can do to contribute to changing this law? Is Obama completely impotent on this matter?

Is Obama completely impotent in all legislative matters?

[USArmyParatrooper]

90. Oh, is that all it takes?

Hey, you're on to something. You'd only have at least 10 Democrats and ALL Republicans railing against it. Great plan.

[Oregone]

92. So Obama is completely impotent in the effort to change this? There is nothing he hasn't done?

Is he impotent in all legislative matters?

If so, why do we need Obama? Wouldn't a robot that can sign papers be just as effective?

[JuniperLea]

95. Ever heard of The Hyde Amendment? eom

[Oregone]

98. Apparently, its something that can NEVER, EVER, SUPER-DUPER be changed

Queue the Chris Crocker plea

[USArmyParatrooper]

102. Under this Congress? Correct

So who do you think as President could get 100% of Democrats and few Republicans to vote for repealing the Hyde Amendment?

[Oregone]

105. So, now it can be change? Its just not politically feasible to try to stop injustice *now*?

When will it be? How long will victims have to wait and be subjected to injustice before its the right time to even attempt to stop it?

[JuniperLea]

104. Well, it won't be changed if people don't focus...

And make it so. Bashing someone for adhering to law isn't even close to attempting a change of law. And expecting one person to change it is really silly.

[Oregone]

109. "Bashing someone for adhering..."

That isn't what most of these sub-threads are about.

Rather, Im merely attempting to assign responsibility to recognizing injustice and failing to contribute to an effort to stop it. This started when Mr. Paratrooper implied the administration was free and clear of any blame, in any manner for this matter. That is simply fallacious.

[USArmyParatrooper]

111. So who do you think as President could get 100% of Democrats and few Republicans

to repeal the Hyde Amendment?

I'm growing a beard waiting for an answer.

[Oregone]

114. Obama could try his best, no doubt

He's brilliant politically. When he tries. For the love of God, this man got a black man elected in the USA.

That aside, thats not really the argument Im making. He doesn't have to pass it--he merely has to try in good faith.

He is smart enough to recognize injustice, and here, in this case, he simply is choosing to do nothing about it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

117. Hey can TRY to make pigs fly

Here's the difference between us.

You want the President to give a valiant, token "effort" to pass things you know damn well won't be passed to satisfy your ideology.

I want the President to actually get things done. In this particular case that futile "effort" would have compromised our ability to have something hugely important (HCR) actually passed.

[JuniperLea]

115. I'm not talking about "most of these sub-threads"

I'm responding to one post. One issue at a time...

Do you know for a fact that Obama is failing to contribute to an effort to stop it? Link please?

He's been working on a lot of things we don't know about until something shakes loose... so how exactly would you know something like that?

[Oregone]

118. We have no reason to believe Obama is trying to change to Hyde amendment

Perhaps its secret 3D chess knowledge, but honestly, I think arguing on the grounds of hypothetical secret knowledge is rather pointless. Yes, we do not *know* this, nor do we know anything else he may secretly doing. If this was a sufficient argument to never criticize the president for lack of action, no presidents would ever be subject to criticism for inaction.

Its one hell of a little.....

LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!

[JuniperLea]

120. Dude... you really need to read your own post...

You are the one who argued a hypothetical. I merely put a light on it.

[Oregone]

123. Ok, so we can now NEVER criticize a president for inaction, because they *might* secretly be

Thats absurdity. But fine. Im not going to quibble in LEAVE OBAMA ALONE land.

[JuniperLea]

126. Wow...

Can you stay on topic, follow a conversation, mean what you say? Wow...

[Oregone]

130. Thanks for hopping to your buddy's defense

But you've done nothing but driven into secret hypothetical crazy tangents. I appreciated you more when you ignored me for being "lesser" than you.

[JuniperLea]

133. Whaaaa?

"But you've done nothing but driven into secret hypothetical crazy tangents."

Seems to me the crazy tangents are not of my making... the twisting in the breeze, the inability to stay on point, the hypotheticals were things I've responded to. Projection is kinda sorry.

[Oregone]

135. "the twisting in the breeze"

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

144. That all you got?

Thanks for illustrating my point. It's not good form, but if that's all you have... enjoy.

[JuniperLea]

131. I never said anything of the sort...

Please stop putting words in my posts.

[USArmyParatrooper]

121. lol There is nothing "hypothetical" or "secret"

It. Doesn't. Have. The. Votes. In. Congress. Period.

That's not hypothetical and it's not a secret. It's the real world. And you know it, which is why you're personalizing the discussion with that last post.

[Oregone]

125. Hey, I'm not the one suggesting Obama is involved in a secret effort to change this law

You gotta get with the other poster to go over that one.

"It. Doesn't. Have. The. Votes. In. Congress. Period."

So, why try? Why try and challenge injustice? Resign to failure? Its better than trying? Obama is too impotent to change minds? You think he has no power to influence the populace that keeps lawmakers in office? He has no power to influence the lawmakers?

Again...why do we need Obama?

[USArmyParatrooper]

137. To your questions

"Its better than trying?"

I answered that many times, though I'm sure you'll frame those answers dishonestly.

"Obama is too impotent to change minds?"

Obama can change some minds about some things. In your opinion who, as President, could get a SINGLE Republican to vote to repeal the Hyde Amendment? Nobody? What, literally everyone in the world is too impotent to change minds?

"You think he has no power to influence the populace that keeps lawmakers in office? "

Nope, never said that.

"He has no power to influence the lawmakers?"

Never said that either.

"Again...why do we need Obama?"

Because he can and does change minds and influences lawmakers. And he focuses on the possible.

[Oregone]

140. "Because he can and does change minds and influences lawmakers"

But not in this case. He didn't try. He looked into the face of injustice and shrugged.

[USArmyParatrooper]

142. That's right. He didn't try to do something impossible at the expense of something possible.

As I said, you want a President who will ignore political posturing (which is actually required to pass bills) to satisfy your ideology.

I want a President who gets things done that agrees with my ideology.

[Oregone]

145. You think its a trade-off (constructing a false dichotomy) but he could be working on this right now

But he isn't. He is looking at injustice. He is shrugging

[JuniperLea]

147. I never said anything of the sort...

Wow... one track mind?

[Oregone]

151. You most certainly implied it

"Do you know for a fact that Obama is failing to contribute to an effort to stop it? Link please?

He's been working on a lot of things we don't know about until something shakes loose... so how exactly would you know something like that?"

Besides...I know he isn't. He is too busy fulfilling his campaign promise to renegotiate or repeal NAFTA! That takes a lot of work

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

156. Fertilizer

That's all you got... shit you make up.

[USArmyParatrooper]

99. NO President could change the law

"Is he impotent in all legislative matters?"

No.

So, you, being an honest person who doesn't just say what's convenient to try to win an argument, actually believe ALL Democrats and a few Republicans would go along with changing the law in order to block a filibuster?

[Oregone]

101. I asked if they can contribute to an effort to change a law

Try again.

[USArmyParatrooper]

106. In the same way they can contribute to an effort to flap their wings and fly to the moon, sure

[Oregone]

128. And if that were the "just" action, I would clap on flapping away

[USArmyParatrooper]

132. You want a President who "justly" flaps, I want one who gets things done

[Oregone]

134. If "getting things done" involves ignoring injustice, thats not my cup of tea

To each their own. Give him a pass for doing nothing on this matter if you will. That is, afterall, the point of your OP, right? Whatever we do, don't criticize Obama.

[USArmyParatrooper]

138. You must have disdain for all Democratic Presidents

Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc. Which ones pushed Congress to repeal the Hyde Amendment?

[Oregone]

139. I have criticism on most Democratic presidents' actions (and inactions)

But far less than Republicans.

I come from a rare school where you can be critical of failures and inaction, while lauding success.

[USArmyParatrooper]

141. Which Obama's successes do you laud? eom

[Oregone]

143. College loan reform is a biggie for starters

He missed the opportunity to take the debate public at a very opportune time (the socialism vs capitalism debate), but it is still a major accoplishment.

[uppityperson]

54. "further" is the word here. It does restrict them, you add in "further" .

it restricts them the same, except for those who used to have coverage and now don't.

[USArmyParatrooper]

60. "except for those who used to have coverage and now don't."

Elaborate.

So being part of an insurance pool that doesn't cover abortion is more restrictive than not having insurance?

[uppityperson]

63. What about women who used to have coverage. Will they now continue to do so?

[USArmyParatrooper]

65. What are you referring to?

[uppityperson]

68. I got an answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8873167&mesg_id=8873608

[Oregone]

25. Is your argument this: since injustice existed, continued injustice is permissible?

[USArmyParatrooper]

40. The ban on federal funds for all abortions is not Obama's doing

As such, I don't think it's fair to sling mud in his face for signing legislation that will insure millions of Americans who previously couldn't get coverage - just because the bill is under the constraints of the law.

[Oregone]

44. So as long as we dont attack Obama, you are happy?

Did Obama campaign against this injustice? Did he attempt to frame it's continuation as non-permissible? Did he take an active role, in good faith, in attempting to stop this injustice from continuing?

Or does he recognize this problem in existing, and did not do anything to change it?

Or does he simply not recognize this issue as a problem at all?

[USArmyParatrooper]

47. You want to change the law, I agree with you.

Did Obama campaign on changing the law to allow federal funds to cover abortion? No.

But since we agree on this point, tell me your plan on changing it and getting it passed through Congress.

[Oregone]

49. So if you don't campaign to stop an injustice, it is permissible for you not to try?

[USArmyParatrooper]

50. Link me to which specific campaign promise you're ferring to

i.e. "stop an injustice"

Also, do you agree that at this point trying to change the law is futile?

Should health care reform, including high risk insurance pools have been brushed aside until that law is changed?

[Oregone]

51. You are confused

I am asking, is it your position that: "if a candidate doesn't make a promise to stop a specific injustice, it is permissible for them to ignore that injustice"?


"do you agree that at this point trying to change the law is futile"

Is it ever futile to attempt to change unjust laws that create undue duress on vulnerable segments of the population?

[USArmyParatrooper]

59. Oh, boy. Here comes the chess analogy you love so much

"Is it ever futile to attempt to change unjust laws that create undue duress on vulnerable segments of the population?"

By answering a question with a question (thus not answering) you seem to acknowledge that Congress didn't (and doesn't) have a snowballs chance in hell of changing the law. So, why not occupy Congress with pushing something that won't pass?

In this case let's look at health care reform. The abortion debate was already muddying up the water to the point that it almost didn't pass. Mark Stupak was only one small example of that. Had the Democrats thrown that in the mix, in my opinion it would have killed any chance at getting it passed.

Frankly, I prefer to focus on the possible.

[Oregone]

66. So, to get things straight:

1. Its permissible for a candidate to ignore injustice, as long as it wasn't in their campaign platform

2. It can sometimes be futile to attempt to challenge injustice, and too politically damaging to try

Are those two accurate descriptions of your belief system?

[USArmyParatrooper]

73. I love the strawman

I never said any of those.

There are TONS of injustices to focus on and no President can focus on all of them in one term. Frankly, as compared to other injustices (like 40 million uninsured Americans) the fact that Federal funds don't cover abortion is small potatoes in my opinion. If it was remotely feasible for it to pass I would have no problem with Congressional Democrats focusing on that task.

I am all for a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but frankly federal funds paying for that choice isn't high on my priority list. I certainly would NOT trade it for broader health care reform, let alone letting HRC slip in a futile effort to change the law.

[Oregone]

77. Ive given you plenty of chances to refute those points in this sub-thread

Essentially, you want to specifically absolve Obama of blame for this problem, but you can only do so if ignoring injustice is permissible.


"the fact that Federal funds don't cover abortion is small potatoes in my opinion"

I differ in opinion. All necessary procedures should be entirely paid for with federal & state funds (no copay or deductible should apply). To each their own.

[USArmyParatrooper]

81. Essentially, you want to blame Obama for...

1: That which is not of his doing and

2: That which he cannot possibly change.

Refute one or two I will join your Obama bashing bandwagon. "Well he can try!" is NOT refuting 2. He can also "try" to flap his arms and fly to the moon.

Let the record show you cannot refute either.

[Oregone]

84. Yes, he should shoulder responsibility for not trying to change an unjust law that already exists

[USArmyParatrooper]

93. So there was an option 2 now there's not?

[Oregone]

100. Option 2 has always been a big piece of shit

I learned that in first grade. Im glad thats your preference.

[uppityperson]

83. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[USArmyParatrooper]

108. Of course I do, and I used it in the right context.

[uppityperson]

112. I apologize. I rec'd this and now wish to take it back because of your agenda

At first I thought you only.wanted to clear up a misunderstanding, but it appears I was wrong.

[USArmyParatrooper]

124. Honestly I give two shits about recs

What "agenda" do I have?

[Oregone]

136. I always rec threads like this

I like people to see it. Cracks me up.

[JonLP24]

103. When he signed the bill

it didn't include the Stupak amendment. He signed an executive order after to strengthen the Hyde Amendment because of a deal he made with Stupak so that he could insure his vote for the bill. If there is nothing he can do about that law why bother signing an executive order to strengthen its effect?

[USArmyParatrooper]

129. And the "executive order" was redundant to the wording in the bill and current law

It did nothing. It was political cover for Stupak, a meaningless "executive order"

Also, you're actually making one of my points. He did that, why exactly? Oh, yes. To get the damn bill passed - a bill that was actually possible to pass. Which bolsters my arguments that futilely fighting the Hyde Amendment would have hurt our ability to get HCR passed.

[JonLP24]

152. It wasn't exactly redundant

The Hyde Amendment (which is more of a "rider" than a law) and primarily affected Medicare. Policy researchers explain how it would affect women to receive abortions through private insurance. http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/dhp_publications/pub_uploads/dhpPublication_FED314C4-5056-9D20-3DBE77EF6ABF0FED.pdf

The executive order based on the Stupak amendment strengthen the Hyde Amendment rather than copy and paste word for word. I'm no fan of Stupak either so I question him what is the point if it doesn't matter?

[asdjrocky]

5. Unrec.

Because the twisted logic made my neck hurt.

[USArmyParatrooper]

12. Very well

Explain exactly how these high risk pools (that didn't even exist before) are a "death blow" to vulnerable women?

On my side vulnerable women (as and qualifying men), who previously could not receive health care coverage can now be covered. These pools also also require that their premiums be capped at the average standard rate in their respective markets.

On your side.... explain how these pools are bad for vulnerable women.

[asdjrocky]

16. I'd rather have a conversation with cement than try to explain somehting to someone

who has a DLC agenda.

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. Ah, yes. The "you're not worth it" duck and hide

:hide:

[JuniperLea]

23. So, you'd rather hurl personal insults than discuss this rationally?

That's nice.

Would you please point to anything that shows Federal funds ever paying for abortions? I do believe there are laws and regulations prohibiting that... I don't agree with said laws... I would refuse to allow my tax dollars to fund war if I could, but I can't... taxes are fungable... we should be working together to repeal these laws instead of hurling insults at each other.

[femrap]

24. You need to go

read some articles on pro-choice. We're not here to educate you about women's health....nor the lack of abortion facilities for working and poor women who are very ill.

Now if you removed your balls, there wouldn't be a problem of unplanned pregnancy, would there?

[JuniperLea]

28. Federal funds have never paid for abortions...

There are laws forbidding it... this entire story is a farce made up to get visceral reactions and cause argument.

[mopinko]

87. they were before hyde.

hyde came about in the raygun years, and until then medicade paid for them. you couldn't get one if you were a poor woman in cook county hospital, either, thanks to henry's buddy, george dunn, president of the f'ing cook county board. iirc, that is the reason the study on the connection between roe and crime was done here.

[JuniperLea]

94. Perhaps I should have said...

Never that I can remember:)

Still, what was that? Over 30 years ago and we have people pulling each other's hair out over this? Bashing The Magic Negro because he followed the rules and adhered to laws?

[mopinko]

160. i'm with you. no sense adding that argument to hcr.

it was a good 30 years ago.

[USArmyParatrooper]

33. What does any of that have to do with the high risk pools?

They neither provide for, nor take away from women being able to receive an abortion.

[sandnsea]

9. The rider policy is for the exchange

I never saw anything about a rider in the TEMPORARY high risk pool.

[JuniperLea]

17. I've never seen Federal funds pay for abortions either...

I think this is yet another set up to get people arguing.

[uppityperson]

13. Nothing has changed, but I think it should. The language can be confusing.

It seems to be that nothing has changed regarding insurance paying for abortions. But I think federal funds should be used to cover all abortions.

I also agree that that other thread was confusing, seeming to say, in places, that women could not pay for abortions out of pocket rather than they could not pay for insurance that would cover abortions.

[Oregone]

21. Recognizing a problem--an injustice if you will--and advancing a reform that ignores it...

Well yes, perhaps this aspect may not be "worse" (forgive me if I don't know any scenarios off hand that would make it so), but the guiding philosophy regarding this method of reform can be described as Jackassery at best.

Its like recognizing the gross injustice cause by a classist and racist driven law that sentences crack users to 100 X the jail time of cocaine users, and responding with a reform that lowers the ratio to 18:1 (and at least that moves in the positive direction).

[uppityperson]

I do not think this is right. "same old thing" is not right but it is nothing new

I am not "advancing a reform that ignores it" but simply commenting the truth that not having insurance pay for abortions is nothing new.

Abortions should be covered by insurance. Period.

[Oregone]

37. "is not right but it is nothing new"

What's worse....

Having ass-backwards imbeciles, who have no ability to understand the notion of injustice, enforce the status quo?

Or...

Having intelligent leaders, who recognize problems but ignore them, enforce the status quo?

[uppityperson]

55. For those women who used to have insurance coverage, will they still?

Or will this take that right away?

[Oregone]

62. No idea

I don't know the ins and outs of it all. If those women's plan will become subsidized with federal funds, their plans will have to change. If the government provides enough incentive for businesses to enter the exchange, many women's plans will change. It seems though, that if a private plan remains unchanged in the way that its paid for, women should be able to retain that coverage (so, those women who don't move to the exchange will not be affected by this)

I wonder if many women who may qualify for the public exchange will actually find cheaper unsubsidized coverage on the private market when you figure in the cost of the private abortion rider to the exchange/high-risk plans.

[uppityperson]

71. That is what I am wondering.Thanks.

[Oregone]

74. There are quite a few problems with the exchange being too lucrative to businesses

Not only this, but we could definitely see the average national actuarial value go down, leaving Americans more responsible for a larger portion of their health costs. While yes, that can significantly lower the premium, coughing up 30% of a heart surgery may not be so nice when it actually happens to you. The government set a very low bar for what they consider an acceptable actuarial value.

[WolverineDG]

19. I never had health insurance that covered elective abortions

I know they exist, because the GOP had one for decades, but those are uncommon. No one I know has an insurance policy that covers them either, just in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother.

dg

[Luminous Animal]

27. Nope. Not uncommon, at all.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html

[uppityperson]

39. I found these 3 references, interesting.

Thank you for the Guttmacher link. It reads to me that some insurance companies offer coverage for abortions, but there can be limitations.

Since 1998, 21 states have mandated that private-sector insurers cover prescription contraceptives and related services if they cover other prescription drugs or devices and other outpatient services, respectively.*7 These 21 states account for more than half of the nation’s population overall and of women of reproductive age.8 Yet because state
mandates do not apply to self-insured plans, they likely affect only about one-quarter of women covered by employer sponsored plans. Moreover, even if state mandates require coverage of a service, drug or device, insurers may restrict access to it in several ways, such as hrough high out-of-pocket expenses for enrollees.
(clip)
For comparison, we examined coverage of other reproductive and general health care services. Annual gynecologic exams were almost universally covered, and the majority of plans covered male or female sterilization (89%) and surgical or medical abortion (87%). According to write in comments, however, some of the insurers reporting that abortion was covered narrowly interpreted this to mean when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s health. Prescription drugs in general were almost universally covered, whereas prescription medical devices in general were covered in 95% of plans.
(clip)
By comparison, annual gynecologic exams (already almost universally included in HMOs in 1993) increased significantly among POS and PPO plans. Overall coverage of sterilization did not change significantly between 1993 and 2002, although it increased slightly in HMO and POS plans. Coverage of surgical abortion increased significantly—overall, and among HMOs and PPOs. Coverage of general prescription drugs and devices also increased slightly from the already high levels in 1993, particularly among HMOs.

[WolverineDG]

42. Lies, damn lies, & statistics perhaps

All I know is that neither I nor anyone I know (including family & friends who live across the US) do not have abortion coverage except in cases of emergency.

dg

[uppityperson]

57. I know no one who has insurance coverage for abortions. Wondering about those who do, will they lose

it?

[USArmyParatrooper]

70. Oh, those pesky little things called facts

http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/common/

Q. Does insurance cover the cost of an abortion?
A. Almost two-thirds of insurance companies cover elective abortion to some degree. Contact your insurance company to find out if you are covered.

[uppityperson]

89. However, insurance companies can and do limit it by definition. "to some degree."

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html
For comparison, we examined coverage of other reproductive and general health care services. Annual gynecologic exams were almost universally covered, and the majority of plans covered male or female sterilization (89%) and surgical or medical abortion (87%). According to write in comments, however, some of the insurers reporting that abortion was covered narrowly interpreted this to mean when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s health. Prescription drugs in general were almost universally covered, whereas prescription medical devices in general were covered in 95% of plans.larly among HMOs.

[WolverineDG]

146. *If* your employer purchases the rider or you purchase it yourself

so do most employers or their employees do so?

dg

[JuniperLea]

30. Federal funds have never paid for abortions either...

That's where the real pressure should be applied, imho, to repeal such things.

We all went through this when the big health care debates were going on here... yet so few seem to remember.

:shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

20. The issue is NOT paying for an abortion out of pocket outright.

the issue is access to INSURANCE that covers abortion.

[USArmyParatrooper]

29. Insurance subsidized with Federal funds

Personally I think the pools should. Hell, it sounds harsh to say so but it's a lot cheaper than birthing a child. That being said this is nothing new and having high risk pools that cover millions (who couldn't previously be covered) is NOT an attack on vulnerable women just because it doesn't cover abortion.

[JuniperLea]

34. Federal funds have never paid for abortions...

Bottom line. If we want to argue, or force an issue, that's where we should begin.

Birth control should be available to all women as well... that would cut down the need.

The thing that really chaps my hide is that RWers don't want Federal funds to pay for abortions, but they don't want to pay for unwanted children on the dole either. I guess they just want them to die.

[Luminous Animal]

153. Again and again and again. The issue is that there is absolutely no option (unlike exchanges)

that would allow women to purchase their own abortion INSURANCE coverage. Zero, none, nada.

The insurance exchange that kicks in in 2014 allows women to purchase separate abortion coverage as long as the money paid to the insurance companies is not co-mingled with federal funds.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. A woman learns in the 6th month of pregnancy that her fetus is severely deformed

Probably won't survive long after birth. Because her pregnancy does not threaten her life and is not the result of rape or incest she will have to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of her own pocket for surgical procedure far more complicated than a standard first trimester procedure.

But hey, at least it's still legal for her to get an abortion, right?

[BrklynLiberal]

32. Still legal for the time being...anyway.

[Control-Z]

67. Right.

And she's extra lucky because there are a total number of two doctors in the entire country who perform these complicated procedures. There were three, but Dr. George Tiller was assassinated last year by a crazy fuck - encouraged by fine religious do-gooders, and now we're down to two. Women really are lucky.

RIP, Dr. George Tiller - a true hero.

[Hello_Kitty]

113. And thanks to all the sensible liberals here who remind us of it. eom

[bain_sidhe]

76. I think what people are upset about is that Obama's regs go BEYOND

what the health care reform instituted as "restrictions" on abortion coverage. Note, that's coverage of abortions, not the actual abortion.

The HCR permitted companies in the exchange to offer separate "riders" that participants could pay for, with their own money, to cover abortions. Obama's regs for the high-risk pool - something that was ENTIRELY up to him, not subject to congressional action - does NOT permit companies to offer separate "riders" that women could purchase with their own money.

Get it? No, it doesn't effect current law at all. But in a situation where Obama could make any rule he wanted (aside from allowing federal funds to pay for the abortion itself, which is currently illegal), he made the high-risk pools EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE than congress made the upcoming insurance exchanges. THAT'S what people are mad about.

[Oregone]

82. Got a link to that?

"does NOT permit companies to offer separate "riders" that women could purchase with their own money."

That pretty much blows this persons argument out of the water if true.

[JuniperLea]

97. Ever heard of The Hyde Amendment? eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

150. Isn't the Hyde Amendment for Fed funded programs & aren't high risk pools w/Private insurers?

[JuniperLea]

157. There are two issues here...

Fed funded, and private. There's no law saying private insurance carriers must cover abortions. As of a study last year (it's linked in this thread) only 46% of all private insurance companies cover abortion for any reason. There's no law saying they must fund anything. It's private; they make their own decisions.

I say this is a bullshit argument made up to stir the shit. The part about not allowing women to pay for their own is utter fertilizer... and that is what is sparking contention. Nothing has changed.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

159. But there are some insurance companies that do pay for abortion and this law will prohibit them

from doing so. 46% is still quite high. I think this law is bullshit as it surpasses Hyde and goes into the private sector.

[Hello_Kitty]

148. And he didn't do it in a vacuum. Insurance cos. do not want this kind of coverage in high risk pools

Women with health problems are at greater risk for pregnancy complications and more likely to seek abortion services.

[laughingliberal]

86. I didn't see anyone say the woman couldn't pay for an abortion out of her own funds...

"They won't even be given the option to pay for that
coverage with their own money. We can't let this decision stand."


That means the high risk pools will not cover abortion AND the woman can not pay for a rider to the policy which would. Actually, the high risk pools are pretty much a pay the premium out of your own pocket deal, anyway. I don't see that federal funds are being used for any of the coverage there, anyway.

Nice attempt to defend the indefensible, though.

I'll believe women have achieved first class citizenship when birth control is covered as frequently as Viagra.

[JuniperLea]

149. Well said!

:applause:

[USArmyParatrooper]

155. Nice attempt?

"That means the high risk pools will not cover abortion AND the woman can not pay for a rider to the policy which would."

Unsubstantiated. Link please?

"Actually, the high risk pools are pretty much a pay the premium out of your own pocket deal, anyway. I don't see that federal funds are being used for any of the coverage there, anyway."

That would be true if weren't for the fact that federal funds are being used for coverage.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/29/98362/high-risk-health-insurance-pools.html
"Expenses not covered by the premiums, deductibles and copayments will be covered by the $5 billion from the federal government."

Your entire post is an unsubstantiated claim and a blatant falsehood.

Nice attempt at a rebuttal, though.

[MilesColtrane]

127. I believe the key word is "coverage".

They could still pay cash for an abortion, but they won't be allowed to pay for an insurance policy in the high risk pool that covers elective abortions.

That's the way I read it anyway.

[BlueCheese]

154. Sincere question here.

Do any of the health plans offered to federal employees provide abortion coverage?

[Tailormyst]

158. They cannot by additional insurance to cover abortions with their own money

Only the women with enough money on hand right away can have an abortion. Do you not see how fucked up that is?