Explain Abortion to me Currently...

[RoadRage]

Right now, if you (if your female) or your girlfriend needed to get an abortion, who would pay for it? You personally or your insurance? Is there any government sponsored plan that pays for Abortions right now (excluding life of the mother, etc.)?

I think if I decided to have an abortion right now, I would have to drive to the clinic and pay for that service myself (about $600 where I live). My current insurance plan doesn't cover it - and I have a pretty decent plan.

So, How does the Stupak amendement "Take us back 35 years"? Abortion is still legal. And if heathcare passes, it will still cost the same amount of money as currently does, correct?

As a woman, I think i'd rather have something rather then nothing. And right now, we have nothing. If this bill passes - at least I will have HEALTHCARE for almost everything else, and be better able to scrape $600 together if i'm in the unfortunate situation of needing to have an abortion.

What am I missing here?

[firedupdem]

1. Rec'd n/t

[napi21]

2. As I understand it, there are some ins. plans that currently pay for

an abortion procedure. His ammendment would stop that. I honestly don't knows for sure, but that's the understanding I got from reading quite a few different articles.

[RoadRage]

4. I guess i'd like to see a copy of those plans...

They sound like the "Gold Plated" insurance plans, because most i've heard of do NOT.

Even so, at $600 - and a proceedure that a woman would not likely have more then once in a lifetime, if ever - I still think a plan that doesn't pay for this proceedure, but covers the costs of all others is still financially more advantageous then what we currently have (NOTHING).

And, I would have to think that the monthly premium on a plan that covers abortion has gotta be pretty hefty ($100 for an idividual, or $300+ for a family per month). You're still going to probably make up more money then you'll lose if the plan goes through.

[dflprincess]

17. It is not necessarily "gold plated" plans that cover abortion services

[bluetrain]

5. Most of them currently cover it. Something like 87% of them.

[RoadRage]

7. According to this article - 46% Do..

The 87% number comes only when you include all plans that only cover it "in case of the life of the mother".

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5264.html

Either way.. 47% was even higher then I thought. I have a good plan.. and it's not covered, but maybe it's because I live in Nebraska - and it's no secret how conservative my state is.

[noamnety]

10. That's not accurate information.

"Importantly, the 87% of plans that covered abortions did not include plans that offered abortion coverage only in very limited circumstances (such as rape and incest, or to protect the woman’s life). "

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

(that's why you shouldn't get your info from right wing sites)

[treestar]

3. 74% pay out of their own funds anyway

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

What you're missing is making a fetish out of one procedure and one situation for a relatively inexpensive procedure not needed by every woman and by some women never, over the possibility of catastrophic illness with expensive treatments being covered.

I guess some would rather see women untreated for things like cancer and arthritis and the million other things that go wrong rather than just pay for a $500 procedure.

In other words, some people just want to rail against the bill no matter what it contains. If there had been no Stupak Amendment, there'd be something else.

[NJGeek]

6. great point

[ipaint]

12. Actually no that's not the case.

As usual these types of restrictions hit the working class, working poor and poor the hardest. The very women who desperately need subsidy assistance to obtain abortions. The recovery is a decade away at least for these folks and I really am at a loss as why it's ok to throw them and the 18 million that will remain uninsured even with passage of this bill by the wayside and then proceed to minimize their problems.

It's one thing to accept the lesser of two evils and quite another to ignore the suffering of those who are sacrificed, always the poorer classes, for the greater good.

[Telly Savalas]

31. Where is the subsidy assistance for lower income womens' reproductive choice currently coming from?

[ecstatic]

32. Bingo: "If there had been no Stupak Amendment, there'd be something else."

[noamnety]

8. When you say government, do you mean federal or state?

anyway, it's nice for you that you have a clinic within driving distance and $600 you could scrape up in an emergency. You're right, it sounds like this amendment wouldn't have much of an impact on you personally.

[RoadRage]

9. Answer my question?

How is what we currently have, in terms of abortion worse then what will be gained if this bill passes.

Right now do you have access to a "free" abortion option? I'm serious - I really want to know if that is an option.

[noamnety]

13. You also asked if there was a plan that provided government funding for abortions.

I was going to answer that question - but the answer depends if you are talking about federal funding or state funding.

Anyway, a link has been posted several times now (three times by me already) with statistics on how many insurance companies provide abortions as part of their health care coverage, and if you really wanted to know about government funding of abortions, I imagine your google works as well as mine. It took me less than a minute to find the answer.

[RoadRage]

11. And by "government" I mean either federal or state..

ANY entity that currently will provide a free abortion option. I think I read that 38 states currently prohibit providing that on a state level (except in cases to save the life of the mother).

[noamnety]

14. If 38 states prohibit it, you can draw some conclusions about the others

and you'll have answered your own question.

[RoadRage]

15. Yup.. I have answered my own question

74% of all women who have abortions pay for it themselves.

Right now, women have to figure out a way to pay for insurance if they can afford it.. or go without if they can't.

If this passes, even "as is" - it's far better to all women's overall health then the current system of NOTHING - especially those who can't afford insurance.

So, this getting passed was a good thing, and is certainly better then nothing. And protesting it because of one issue, that affects far less women that "no insurance" does to all of the women who can't afford it now is idiotic IMO.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. .....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/8/802199/-Im-Done-Talking-About-Abortion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6967384&mesg_id=6967384

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8743775#8743903

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6963999

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6963482&mesg_id=6963682

[vaberella]

18. I hate the argument that this is an attack on the poor. That is the most piss-poor argument EVER.

If you are poor, you most likely don't have insurance because you can't pay for the bullshit. You can't pay for it. So poor women would NEVER Have been covered by insurance coverage. If they are working they probably have shit jobs, and shit health insurance if it's offered---most likely no abortion coverage. So when people say this is an attack on the poor---I'm like now you're just lieing to get your way.

Further more, I'd like to know if the services offered were for everyone or women of rape, incest, or the mother's health----who dd get some services under some insurance plans. Further more those are private plans and not federally funded.

[RoadRage]

23. I agree..

I think that those opposed to this are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Every woman needs medical coverage - but not every women will have an abortion. And, it's still fully legal, you will just have to continue to pay for it out of your own pocket, like almost 75% of all women seem to do now.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with abortions not being "free".

[Orsino]

24. It's one facet of the attack on the poor.

You're correct that it wouldn't change much...but the wider attack on the poor (and on women, and on poor women) doesn't allow for exceptions, so this had to be attached. If anyone's going to get exceptions made, it sure as hell won't be the poor.

[K8-EEE]

19. Agreed. I'm for legal abortion -- but as for the government paying for it?

It's not like people are going to go bankrupt paying for it?? It's a relatively simple and relatively cheap procedure. These days most early abortions are done with drugs at home. I'm a donor to planned parenthood and totally pro-choice but except in the case of medical harm to the mother, I don't see not covering all elective abortions as a deal breaker. And don't cover viagra either!

[bluetrain]

20. If that were the issue, and you well know it isn't, why not exclude any legal medical procedure

for any condition which costs less than say $1,500? Does that sound good?

[Skittles]

21. it's ridiculous to say it is cheap, too

a great number of women in America have to TRAVEL and pay overnight expenses to obtain a legal procedure

[RoadRage]

25. How is THAT going to change?

Show me where overnight travel and lodging is going to be covered for ANY medical proceedure. If I have to have colon surgery and need to travel 8 hours to get to the hospital, does the new healthcare plan now cover my plane ticket or gas money?

[Skittles]

30. I'm not questioning semantics of the bill

I'm just saying it is NOT CHEAP

[Skittles]

22. here

http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-08.html

[cally]

26. You are missing the big picture

The Hyde amendment has held for close to 30 years by an implicit understanding that the Dems would not cave anymore on this issue. Dems knew women would revolt and they would lose voters. I was active politically when the Hyde amendment passed and many progressives made arguments similar to yours. I heard: "Well, abortion is still legal. We still have Planned Parenthood and women's health clinics. We can work to change it later. If this is as bad as it gets, then we can live with it."

Except, the last 30 years have seen a continual removal of women's rights. Many states and communities don't have options for women's reproductive health care due to the same religious zealots fighting against health care for women. Remember that many of these same folks don't want birth control covered, cervical cancer vaccines covered, or abortion covered when the woman might die. Many of these key health needs are now at the whim of how this language is interpreted by courts and insurance companies.

Notice, that somehow it's only OK to relegate women's health needs to a political issue. Somehow, we are seen as expendable and that our lives can be taken over by the political whims. Women die from back alley abortions and die from continuing pregnancies that put their lives at risk. It's not just a medical procedure, but whether women's lives are worthy of being protected. Do women have the right to medical help to protect their life or do we let the religious zealots and right winger decide who gets to live and die.

[LWolf]

27. My current insurance doesn't cover much.

And what it does, I don't use. I can't afford the copays and deductibles.

I've skipped the yearly mammogram and pap for the last 6 years, struggling to pay for pricey blood tests and meds for a different condition.

I don't know if it covers abortion.

The insurance I had in '88, much better than today's, DID cover my tubal ligation, ensuring that I'd never need another abortion.

The government DID pay for the abortion I had at the age of 16. I'm grateful.

You are missing the fact that many women CAN'T scrape together $600.

You are missing the fact that the Stupak amendment allows someone other than women themselves to be the gatekeepers for women's reproductive rights and health.

[RoadRage]

28. Look..

I'm NOT missing the fact that women can't scrape together $600 for an abortion. I realize that if they can't scrape together money for that, they also (like you) can't afford co-pays and deductibles, aren't getting mammograms and paps either. So although this isn't PERFECT, it's better then nothing. Yes, if they need an abortion, they still have to figure out a way to scrape together $600. But, now if they need paps & mammograms, they don't have to worry about deductibles & blood work. THAT is covered.

And IMO - THAT is better then nothing (which is what we have right now).

And Hyde currently seems to do the same thing (gatekeeping women's reproductive rights). Again, I don't like it.. but I also think that this is better then nothing. I don't see the point of being against everything for one (big) issue.

[LWolf]

29. There's more than one.

The insurance mandates.

The lack of a good public option available to all.

The stripping of the single-payer amendment.

Add them all up, and it's not "better than nothing."