The Far Reach Of Stupak’s Amendment

[LiberalFighter]

At The Wonk Room

Over at FiredogLake, Jon Walker points out that the Stupak Amendment “could effectively stop many employer-provided health insurance plans from covering abortions for tens of millions of Americans” and restrict any private plan in the Exchange from offering abortion coverage. The amendment stipulates that “no funds” authorized under the health care reform bill “may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case….”


The Stupak amendment would prohibit insurers from selling abortion coverage in the following ways:

1) Any policy that is sold within the Exchange:

2) Policies in the Exchange that receive risk-adjustment dollars:

3) Policies in the Exchange that are directly subsidized by the government:

4) Employer-sponsored policies that receive reinsurance funds:

5) Employer-sponsored policies that receive “wellness program grants”:

6) Employer-sponsored policies that receive small business credits:


At FireDog
The Incredibly Long Arms Of The Stupak Amendment; Your Large Employer Insurance Plan Is Not Safe


According to the gal on Dylan's show on MSNBC 80-85% of insurance plans provide abortion coverage. The witch from FRC was lying as they usually do saying that most plans don't provide abortion coverage and is usually an out of pocket expense.

[derby378]

1. The Stupak Conundrum: Either sell out women or sell out the uninsured

Hopefully this dies on the Senate floor, but even so, the House bill needs a lot more work before I can ever support it.

[niyad]

3. k and r

[sandnsea]

4. Or fix the damn amendment

Eliminate the abortion supplemental policy language, add separately administered riders to all policies sold in the exchange and the public option. Extending that requirement to the private market would be good too.

I don't see how anybody can deny that a 90% federal subsidy for a plan that pays for an abortion is using federal money to pay for abortion.

[sandnsea]

2. We can't get to solutions

when both sides lie. This is a lie. There is just no other way around it. I'm sure you personally believe it to be true - it's just not.

The amendment specifically allows for abortion policies and abortion riders.

And the gal on Dylan's show is wrong. 85% of insurance companies offer plans that include abortion. Less than 50% of plans actually include that coverage, many of them require the rider to be purchased separately.

If we can't get to the truth about something, there isn't any possibility to get to the solution.

And if they do happen to get to the solution in Congress, you're not going to know it because you're operating from the wrong information in the first place.

They're going to resolve Stupak satisfactorily -- and everybody at DU is going to say Congress caved.

Just watch.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Gee when both sides lie?

Two major studies have been conducted on this issue

The best available evidence from two studies—conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)—suggests that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion.

* The Guttmacher Institute’s federally supported study, assessing levels of insurance coverage for a wide range of reproductive health services, found that 87% of typical employer-based insurance policies in 2002 covered medically necessary or appropriate abortions; the data can be found in Table 1 here.
o 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). Only a very small number of respondents offered such limited coverage, and they were not included in the study’s findings.
o The study queried all large insurers (with at least 100,000 enrollees) and a random, nationally representative sample of small insurers.
* The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 46% of covered workers had coverage for abortion. The data were released as part of its 2003 Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey.

[sandnsea]

8. 46% of covered workers had coverage

87% of policies covered "medically necessary" abortions.

You're making my case for me.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Medically nessecary and "life of the mother" are very different

[sandnsea]

10. So fix the damned amendment

But in order to do that, we have to tell the truth about the problems with it. The scare tactics are not helpful.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Sure I'm making your case for you when you redefine it.

You were saying that most plans don't cover abortions before.

Big difference between no abortions and medically necessary.

[sandnsea]

15. The exchange and public option will cover medically necessary abortions

So what the hell are we talking about them for?

You're misstating the situation and it's wrong.

We're talking about abortions of choice in Stupak. 47% of people are covered for abortions of choice.

Don't misinform people.

[LiberalFighter]

17. So you are saying that the Stupak amendment doesn't prohibit it at all?

[sandnsea]

18. Do you want a solution? n/t

[izquierdista]

5. How the Stupak Amendment can blow up in their face

The effect of this amendment, making a previously covered procedure not covered by insurance, just makes it revert to the old fee-for-service model. The most efficient and cost effective parts of the health care system are the ones that are not caught in the insurance reimbursement loop: vision and dental. Dentists and optometrists do far more advertising than other fields of medicine; when was the last time you saw a gastroenterologist advertising a colonoscopy and two bottles of Pepto-Bismol for $99? If women's health services get pushed out into the strip mall next to Eyeglass World and downstairs from the dentist, it may make abortion more affordable for those who need it.

I want to see the look on the fundies' faces when new "sexual health" clinics pop up, selling condoms, filling RU486 prescriptions, offering HPV vaccinations, and offering D&Cs on installment plans. It would take someone ballsy to open up such a chain. I wonder what Larry Flynt is up to these days?

[ClarkUSA]

7. Jon Walker is wrong. Let's break this down in lay terms via the text of the Amendment -->

"...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 EXCHANGE

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 =

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

Hat Tip to demwing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8747423&mesg_id=8749319

[msallied]

11. This issue proves how the media works hard to keep people frothing...

regardless of the actual truth. The language of the amendment is clear. You made it even clearer. The rest is just spin and conjecture and an attempt to distract from what's important-- HEALTH CARE REFORM. If we want to handle federal abortion subsidy bans (i.e. repeal the bloody Hyde amendment), then we attack it with another effing bill. To get riled up over an amendment on a bill that hasn't even gone to committee is ridiculous. Oh sure, let Congress rattle its sabers at the bargaining table, but outrage over shit that isn't even true is not helping anyone.

[ClarkUSA]

13. And liberal bloggers & groups like NARAL and NOW should know better than to spread bullshit, too.

<<If we want to handle federal abortion subsidy bans (i.e. repeal the bloody Hyde amendment), then we attack
it with another effing bill. To get riled up over an amendment on a bill that hasn't even gone to committee is
ridiculous. Oh sure, let Congress rattle its sabers at the bargaining table, but outrage over shit that isn't even
true is not helping anyone.>>

I agree totally. I'd rec you along with many other sane/wise/big picture DUers if you made this into an OP. :)

[msallied]

14. :)

My mind is ticking away on an OP at the moment. Though it seems we're swimming in chum-infested waters today. Common sense may not be very well-received. lol

[ClarkUSA]

16. :D

Choose your moment and speak truth to power. I'll be there with a rec and kick. :hi:

[TheKentuckian]

19. Perhaps I misinterpeted this going off of the actual debate more than the text

I'm still very unclear on what purpose the amendment has since the underlying bill supported Hyde already and to my mind very clearly.