One Premium, Two Checks: How Abortion Will Be Paid For Under The Nelson Compromise

[WilliamPitt]

One Premium, Two Checks: How Abortion Will Be Paid For Under The Nelson Compromise
Brian Beutler | December 19, 2009, 1:53PM

In the House health care bill, consumers who receive federal premium subsidies would be forbidden from buying any insurance policy that covers abortion. That provision--the so-called Stupak amendment--threatened to blow up health care reform. Originally, it's the language Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) wanted to see in the Senate health care bill. In the end, he didn't get that.

But what he did get might still draw the ire of pro-choice activists and legislators. According to a senior Senate leadership aide, under the Nelson compromise, "(i)ndividuals receiving subsidies will have one premium that they pay with two distinct transactions."

Put another way: If you're buying insurance with help from the government, and the policy you want to buy covers abortions, you have to write two checks (or authorize two credit card transactions, etc.) for your plan. If the plan costs $1000 a month, and the insurer plans to sequester $50 to put into a pool that covers abortions, you have to make one payment of $950 and a separate payment of $50.

So far, leading pro-choice Democrats in the Senate say they can abide by that. Here's Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Patty Murray (D-WA):

We said all along that we wanted to ensure there was a firewall between private and public funds -- this compromise achieves that.

We said we would not accept language that prohibited a woman from using her own private funds for her legal reproductive health care -- this compromise meets that test.

And we said we would stop Stupak -- which we did. Let's be clear -- we were both much happier with the Capps language and the language in the underlying bill.

But compromise was necessary to get a health care bill for the American people, and this compromise achieves that.

We know that Republicans are already gearing up their opposition to the compromise on pro-life grounds. And Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) may be gearing up to oppose it. But what will other pro-life and pro-choice Dems in the House say? We'll let you know as reactions crystallize.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/one-premium-two-checks-how-abortion-will-be-paid-for-under-the-nelson-compromise.php?ref=fpblg

(I report, you decide)

[leftstreet]

1. Who cares. At least rich people can still get abortions

That's all that matters.

Oh, and...

:sarcasm:

[BP2]

4. What if the woman is still a dependant

of her parents against abortion?

What if she doesn't anticipate a future abortion, but ends up needing one anyway?

What if she lives in a state (ID, KY, MO, ND and OK) that bans the sale of policies that cover abortion through these exchanges?

What if she simply doesn't have the money to pay for this extra rider? It may be a lot more than just $50.

Some compromise.

[Crzyrussell]

18. Most of you questions

are greater issues than what pertains to health insurance.

Using health care reform as a vehicle to expand abortion financing is not helpful to the cause. Is the status quo so bad that the waters must be muddied so?

[Lars39]

2. What procedure/body part are men having to get special coverage for?

What special hoops are men going to have jump thru to get coverage for their reproductive health?

[cbdo2007]

13. There are plenty of things for both sexes that aren't covered in most health care plans.

In fact I don't think I've ever seen a plan that covered everything, all of the time.

This is just another exclusion. Hardly a very important one compared with people needing surgeries, transplants, cancer treatments, etc. that aren't covered.

[Lars39]

14. Ignorance abounds.

[CrispyQ]

16. I see from your profile you're a man. No surprise there.

Nine times out of ten when I read a post like yours, the poster is male. :eyes:

How easy for you to tell us that restriction to abortion is hardly important compared to other medical procedures, when you will never face an unwanted/unsafe/unhealthy pregnancy. :grr: :grr: :grr: I can't think of a bigger ramification in one's life than to bring a child into it.

[Crzyrussell]

19. What is the big deal if the current

status quo is maintained?

So only women can opine? If you feel so then you must agree that the only people who can opine about war are those who have served in the military.










ed sp

[CrispyQ]

22. I didn't say that only women could state their opinion,

just that when I read posts stating that restricting abortion availability is no big deal, it's usually a man making the statement. And the big deal is that abortion is a legal procedure & a very critical aspect of women's reproductive health. It should not be restricted. They Hyde amendment is a heinous piece of legislation, just like Stupack & Nelson's amendments.

It's not surprising that these awful amendments are brought forth by men. :eyes:

"If men could get pregnant abortion would be sacrosanct."

[enlightenment]

20. "Hardly an important one"

Words fail me - which is a good thing, otherwise I'd be tossed off this board forever.

[cornermouse]

3. "Might?"

"But what he did get "might" still draw the ire of pro-choice activists and legislators."?

[BP2]

5. What is she is a dependent of

her parents or sponsor who are anti-choice?

What if she doesn't anticipate a future abortion, but ends up needing one anyway?

What if she lives in a state (ID, KY, MO, ND and OK) that bans the sale of policies that cover abortion through these exchanges?

What if she simply doesn't have the money to pay for this extra rider? It may be a lot more than just $50.

Some compromise.

[chimpymustgo]

6. We really have to let these assholes know we will NOT accept this ANTI=WOMAN BS.

Kill this bill or fix it dramatically.

[BP2]

8. What if you're a woman who doesn't need Viagra?

Can you opt out of that portion of this circle jerk and save $ on your premium? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

7. I'm literally too furious to read your OP.

And that's the truf.

[madfloridian]

9. Thanks for the post.

You really do not want to know how I feel about it, do you?

I did not think so. :-)

[Neecy]

10. I'll believe this 'abortion pool' when I see it

Putting aside the issue of women having to pay more to cover a basic medical procedure, I wonder how many insurers will really offer an 'abortion pool'.

My guess? None.

I think men should have to buy into a 'boner pool' for their fucking Viagra.

[defendandprotect]

11. The legislation is intended to make abortion something shameful . . .

[Blue State Blues]

12. So a woman buys one of these policies through her employer

and anyone who handles her pay stubs will see the two separate deductions?

and if she buys her own individual coverage through the exchange, anyone at her bank who handles her checks ... or looks at her records if she pays by automatic deduction ...

Where is the protection for her privacy?

[mmonk]

15. Thanks for that information.

[Morning Dew]

17. Until the woman needs the coverage.

Then the insurance company will say that they thought the 50 bucks was to be applied to the premium for the next month.


Sorry, your coverage lapsed.

[enlightenment]

21. The problem I'm having with this opinion piece is that

the language of the bill does not seem to suggest anything like a 'two check' solution.

The language does not in any way indicate that companies within the exchanges can do what the article suggests - offer a non-subsidized 'rider' to a subsidized premium. Maybe that's included in the magic ink between the lines because I'm just not seeing it - and if this is part of the 'details' that will be ironed out by whatever committee, headed up by whatever 'Secretary' is put in charge after the bill becomes law, it is doubly concerning, since there will be no oversight in that process at all.

Assuming that the magic language is there and I'm just too stupid to see it, the bill also stipulates what is allowed and disallowed by federal law in a fashion that makes it look like they would not allow the companies within the exchanges to even offer riders for terminations unless they are allowed under the Hyde Amendment - rape, incest, or the life of the mother. If a woman is paying for the rider with her own - unsubsidized - money, what right does the government have to limit her reasons for an abortion?

Also troubling is that giving states an opt-out through passage of a law means that they are telling the 'qualified insurance companies' that are in the exchanges that they cannot offer abortion coverage at all. Regardless of how one feels about it personally, abortion is a legal medical procedure - this is an end run around Roe v. Wade that will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable.

Add to that that if the law is written in a way that insurance companies outside the exchange feel they could run afoul of its provisions, they probably will choose not to offer coverage - and if they don't fear legal repercussions, they will probably do what insurance companies do best and jack the premium rates for the rider right through the roof. Both scenarios serve to reduce access to even more women.