Stupak does not ban abortions from the exchange

[demwing]

It's confusing, and easy to misunderstand the language, so let's break this down in lay terms:

"...OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN - Not withstanding section 303(b) nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -- ...(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section."

1. nothing in this section shall restrict = THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON

2. any nonfederal = ANY ORGANIZATION (OTHER THAN THE FEDERAL GOVT)

3. QHBP offering entity = THAT OFFERS A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN (AS PER TITLE 1 OF THE BILL)

4. from offering separate supplemental coverage = FROM OFFERING A RIDER THAT COVERS

5. for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

6. or a plan that includes such abortions = OR A PLAN THAT COVERS "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

7. so long as = AS LONG AS

8. any nonfederal QHBP offering entity = SAID ORGANIZATION

9. that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = OFFERING A PLAN ON THE EXHCHANGE

10. that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section = THAT INCLUDES "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS

11. also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan = ALSO OFFERS A PLAN IN THE EXCHANGE

12. that is identical in every respect = IDENTICAL TO THE FORMER PLAN

13. except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section. = EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT COVER "ELECTIVE" ABORTIONS.


Now read the layman's version in full=

"There are no restrictions on any organization (other than the federal govt.) that offers a qualified health plan (as per title 1 of the bill) from offering a rider that covers "elective" abortions, or a plan that covers "elective" abortions, as long as said organization offering a plan on the exchange that includes "elective" abortions, also offers a plan in the exchange identical to the former plan, except that it does not cover "elective" abortions."

Can it get any more clear? How can this POSSIBLY be twisted to mean that you cannot offer a plan in the exchange that offers "elective" abortions?

Read the line: "that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

AGAIN: "an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section"

How can their be such a plan if such plans are banned by this amendment? There cannot! The amendment does not ban these plans from the exchange, and (barring any evidence to the contrary not presented here) anyone who says differently is incorrect.I don't care how famous they are, or what TV show they star in, or what internet videos they produce, or what organizations they represent.

Call me any name you like, it doesn't change the reality of the words as they appear in the amendment.

Say what else you like about Stupak himself, I'm no fan of his. Say what you like about this amendment, I'm no fan of that either, but speak the truth.

[sandnsea]

1. This is a useless debate

Don't beat the hell out of yourself over it. They'll change the Stupak Amendment, everybody here will say all the Dems caved, and health care will pass and hopefully we won't lose too much on the subsidies and medicaid expansion while everyone's paying attention to abortion.

[demwing]

2. I felt similarly

but it pisses me off that a perfectly horrible amendment can't fail on its own merits. It doesn't have to ban abortions from the exchange to suck.

[sandnsea]

5. It isn't a perfectly horrible bill

But if you want it to fail, Stupak is a better reason than some of the other lies that have been told about the bill.

[demwing]

6. My error, I meant "this is a perfectly horrible amendment"

and have corrected the post, thanks

[madfloridian]

3. Women should hush, stay home pregnant and barefoot....

and never question what how their party manipulates them just because they can. Men in suits controlling women.

[demwing]

7. No they should not

but no one should have to misrepresent the truth to make that glaringly obvious point

[Dr Robert]

39. when faced with facts, many choose to act like children

[Egnever]

4. Thanks

Theres plenty of reason to disagree with this amendment wiithout having to lie about what it does.

Thanks for taking the time to lay it out.

[demwing]

12. Thanks

it was your post elsewhere that encouraged me to present this as an OP.

[quakerboy]

8. 2 questions

1: say I have 2 kids and a husband and my income is 16k per year. I have no health insurance of any type. I will be eligible for subsidies that should allow me to buy insurance that I am otherwise not able to afford. With that subsidy do I have the option to choose the plan that covers abortions? Assuming that I do, is that going to be an extra charge? I actually don't have insurance, so I don't know how this works, but I am under the impression adding riders costs additional money.

2: since when in, if a corporation has the option to offer a version, and a version with an additional accessory for the same price and no extra profit, does the corp choose to offer additional value for no added renumeration?

[demwing]

10. 2 answers

1: you cannot pay for elective abortions with subsidies

2: I'm not saying that it will, unless the amendment provision that states that the identical nature of the plan with elective abortion and the plan with out applies to identical cost. And, I'm not making that argument.

The amendment sucks, no argument, and Stupak is a louse. All I'm saying here is that the emendment does not ban abortions from the exchange. The text of the amendment is clear.

[quakerboy]

14. In legality, no

in practical effect, it would seem that they might as well make it ban abortion from the exchange. It will either cost already hurting people money they don't have, or they wont even bother to offer it.

Being allowed to does not mean that they will offer it. And even if a few do, the people who need it will not be able to afford it. Which means in practical effect it bans it, no matter the technicality, no?

[demwing]

16. I do not know if plan providers will chose not to botherr

why wouldn't they? Is it more costly to bring a pregnancy to term, or to provide an early term abortion?

[The Magistrate]

18. Most Medically Necessary Abortions, Sir, Become Necessary Past The Early Portion Of Pregnancy

The most commn reason is gross malformations of the fetus, including fatal outcomes which generally do not become aparent till many weeks have passed. Under the common definitions of the anti-abortion fanatics, these are 'elective' in that they are not absolutely necessary when undertaken to prevent the death of the mother. These are the abortions covered by insurance. Early term elective abortions, which generally are undertaken because the mother does not feel up to raising a child, are almost never covered under insurance, but arranged on a cash basis.

[Egnever]

19. Are you sure of this?

That would imply that this amendment actually changes nothing. I was under the impression that elective abortions are currently covered.

Or am I misunderstanding you in that what you describe is currently classified as elective under most insurance policies? and not just by anti abortion nutjobs.

[The Magistrate]

21. Hyde Amendment Language, Sir

Allows Federal funding only for abortion of pregnancy from incest or rape, or pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. Abortion as a means of dealing with grossly malformed or non-viable fetuses are barred from Federal funding, but insurance policies covering abortion services at present generally cover them. Extending the Hyde language as the Stupak abomination does would effectively bar such coverage for persons receiving subsidies, and pretty much end such coverage by companies offerng policies through the 'exchange' created.

[Egnever]

22. Interesting

I wasnt aware that that distinction was made. Thanks for the clarification.

[demwing]

23. Once more

Stupak does not extend Hyde. Both only allow for abortion only in the case of rape, incest, or tho save the life of the mother.

You wrote:

Hyde Amendment Language, allows Federal funding only for abortion of pregnancy from incest or rape, or pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother.

...Same for Stupak

Abortion as a means of dealing with grossly malformed or non-viable fetuses are barred from Federal funding, but insurance policies covering abortion services at present generally cover them.

...Same for Stupak

Extending the Hyde language as the Stupak abomination does

...Extending in what way? There is no extension

would effectively bar such coverage for persons receiving subsidies and pretty much end such coverage

...What coverage?

1. Allowing Federal abortion funding for incest or rape, or pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. (Allowed by both Stupak and Hyde)
-or-
2. Abortion as a means of dealing with grossly malformed or non-viable fetuses. (Restricted by both Stupak and Hyde)

The two amendments have nearly identical language, allowing for abortions in the same specific cases, and only applying the same restrictions against Federal funding.

[The Magistrate]

29. It Extends he Reach Of Hyde, Sir, Into The Private Market

That is the effect of the thing. You may blink it as you wish, others will not.

[msallied]

30. The private market as it is only part of the PUBLIC health care exchange

and people who are buying those plans with PUBLIC money. That seems to be the gray area people are having here.

[The Magistrate]

44. The Hyde Restrictions, Ma'am, Must Not Be Extended Past Direct Federal Payment

That bright line must continue to confine its intrusion on the rights of the citizenry.

The fungibility line knows no end. As some have pointed out, its strict application would indicate the notorious anti-abortion fanatics of 'Focus on the Family' are paying for abortions with the donations they receive. How? Because they purchase their employees' insurance from a company that writes policies which provide coverage for abortions. Since all monies received by a company go into a single pool under this line of argument, some fraction of the pay-out on abortion coverage comes from the 'Focus on the Family' fanatics. The 'fungibility' argument could be extended to any entity receiving Federal funds in any form, and if this abomination stands, efforts will surely be made by anti-abortion fanatics in Congress to do just that. Should a company which sells products or provides services to the Federal government be allowed to purchase health coverage for its employees that includes abortion coverage? After all, that coverage is paid for with Federal funds in some part. Should a union which includes federal employees, or private employees of a company doing business with the Federal government, be allowed to purchase health insurance for its members which covers abortion? After all, it will be Federal money, in the form of salaries, that ultimately is paying for that coverage. We are dealing with fanatics very much of the 'give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile' sort here, and it is essential they be kicked back into their kennels....

[cornermouse]

28. Tubal or ectopic pregnancy

http://tubalpregnancy.net/

[sybylla]

42. Bingo!

I've been wondering where everyone who was arguing that elective abortions are covered under insurance. They're not. The abortions that are covered involve problem pregnancies only.

[The Magistrate]

9. 'Riders', Sir, Are A Sham

They jack the price considerably, because the total pool is so reduced, and administrative costs increase as a proportion of the reduced pool. In light of this, companies will not be eager to offer them, and consumers none too eager to spend the extra money on top of a standard premium. The result of the abominable amendment, and it is a result intended by the wretches who concocted it, will be to deprive many women of coverage they already have, and to lessen the medical options available to women in dificult pregnancies.

There is no excuse for these anti-abortion fanatics to impose their sick, twisted desire to control the wombs of women on the country at large. Persons arguing in favor of this abomination must be assumed to share that motive unless proven otherwise.

[demwing]

11. I do not post in defense of the amendment

just to clarify a point in contention. Stupak - Pitts does not ban abortions from the exchange. Now, it may be that the administrative cost involved in duplicating plans (one with, and one without abortions) may discourage plan providers from offering riders and alternate plans, but that is entirely different from saying that the amendment bans abortions from the exchange.

[The Magistrate]

13. In Effect, Sir, That Is Precisely What It Does

The language may provide some camouflage, but if this becomes law, coverage for medically necessary abortions will not be available to persons purchasing on the exchange, certainly not for persons who need subsidies to afford standard policy premiums, and many will find coverage they have at present withdrawn or re-priced beyond their means.

[demwing]

15. it has been pointed out elsewhere that covering early term abortions

is less costly than covering pregnancies that come to full term. I don't know if that is true, but it sounded logical.

And yes, you are correct that abortions will not be vailable to persons who need subsidies. That condition applies today to Medicare and Medicaid, and as far as I know, to VA benefits as well.

[The Magistrate]

17. As A Practical fact, Sir, It Will Not Be Available To Most Anyone Using The Exchange

For reasons posted above. You have neither engaged nor denied them.

The Hyde amendment covers direct expenditure of Federal funds. It is bad social policy, for a variety of reasons not worth going into here, but it is fairly well settled. This abominable amendment is a bare-faced attempt by evangelical freaks to extend the reach of Hyde. It must be resisted, and it must be broken to the dust.

[demwing]

24. Engaged or denied?

You suppose that they may not, you don't show any evidence that they will not. What evidence are you looking for that addresses a supposition?

[bornskeptic]

43. Actually Medicaid does cover all medically necessary abortions in some states.

Because Medicaid is funded partially by Federal money and partially by state money, a state may choose to designate that such abortions are covered by the state contribution. Here is a state by state list.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=458&cat=10

[demwing]

45. This is exactly true

Hawaii, Maryland, New York, and Washington. And that's a great resource you presented, thanks.

[Egnever]

20. How is that so?

The amendment specifically exempts cases where it is medically necessary or in the incidence of rape or incest.

What am I missing here?

[dsc]

25. the exception only covers the life of the mother, not the health

so a pregnancy which threatens to make the woman sterile wouldn't be paid for as one example.

[demwing]

26. The same is true for Hyde and Stupak

absolutely no difference

[dsc]

27. the poster I was responding to alledged that no medical necessary abortions

wouldn't be paid for which is what I was responding to.

[Dr Robert]

40. do you really think abortion coverage should be subsidized?

"Persons arguing in favor of this abomination must be assumed to share that motive unless proven otherwise."

If you really believe this,
then you, sir, are full of shit.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Who unrecc'd this informative and factual OP which correctly interprets the Stupak Amendment's text?

Answer: The Haters/Whiners/trolls who live to spread lying liars' bullshit her at DU and the Bitter Ones
who can't stand the truth because it interferes with their 24/7 meoutrage, that's who.

[msallied]

32. Absolutely shocked at the unrecs here. What the hell is the matter with people here?

Far more reliant on histrionic lefty bloggers and media personalities than the actual truth, I guess.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. And liberal elected representatives, and national advocacy organizations, and the president, and...

[ClarkUSA]

34. What's "the baby-killing industry" that you referred to in your OP that called us "liars"?

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

[msallied]

35. Again, people in whose best interest it is to spin and generate outrage

But not actually depend on people READING OR COMPREHENDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT.

[ClarkUSA]

36. The only difference between the Stupak and Hyde Amendments is the former would be permanent.

But that's even a moot point, since the Amendment was meant to only be a temporary means to a legislative end and
will be removed in conference, as per Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Sen. Barbara Boxer.

[Dr Robert]

41. many here prefer to let others do their thinking for them.

it leaves them more time to engage in histrionics.

[dflprincess]

37. The fact that the Bishops Conference was consulted on this alone

should be enough to get it removed from the bill as unconstitutional. The idea of churches writing or contributing to legislation makes me ill. I don't see why non-Catholics (or, for that matter, those of us who have lapsed) should have the Catholic church deciding what medical procedures will be covered by insurance we are paying for.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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