Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Do you think it is worth arguing over insurance covered abortions on the health care bill?

Asked by JLeslie (56038points) December 20th, 2009

Why is it such a big deal to have abortions covered? I understand some liberals want the option of women to be able to pay a separate premium out of their own pocket to have this coverage. Is anyone really going to pay for that? I guess if it is a very low amount of money maybe some would.

Also, do private insurers cover abortions usually?

If a woman’s life is in jeopardy I assume the abortion is covered, even under the gov’t plan. Or, is that excluded too?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

PandoraBoxx's avatar

Private insurers do not cover the cost of an elective abortion. They will cover it with prior authorization if the fetus is dead, and needs to be removed. Abortion, as I believe you are describing it, is an elective surgery, and should not be covered.

dpworkin's avatar

I think it’s a scam to delay things and screw up the passage of the bill, and also an attempt to trade for further evisceration.

Seek's avatar

It should be treated as any other medical procedure.

i.e.: If you’re living with a painful bone disfigurement in your feet, insurance should cover the corrective surgery.

If you want your toes to look better in your high-heeled sandals, you pay for it yourself.

I am pro-choice, and agree that the government has no right to outlaw abortion, but it also does not have the responsibility to pay for them. Abortion should be covered if determined “medically necessary” by a physician. If it is not medically necessary, it should be considered an elective procedure to be paid by the patient.

That said, an abortion will cost your government-sponsored insurance company a considerably smaller amount than even an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery, not to mention the upkeep of the child.

laureth's avatar

To me, it’s worth arguing. Not because of the insurance implications (even though those matter), but because of what it means to the larger picture. If the Religious Right wins this battle, it means they have that much more control over the nation. Imagine what a coup it would be for them, to get their theological position enshrined as the law of the land!

One small step for zealots…

(That said, I think there are issues more important than abortion or even health care that need dealt with, and that these are distractions. I’m unwilling to hand it over to them on a platter, though.)

Judi's avatar

People having to come out of pocket to pay $500.00 for an abortion is nothing compared to a diabetic having to come up with thousands over a lifetime for insulin and medical care, or a bi-polar kid who can’t keep a job without his meds. Let’s get everyone covered already and worry about this later!!

JLeslie's avatar

I agree with both @pdworkin and @Judi I think it is ridiculous to argue over this, and it must be some sort of negotiating ploy by both the right and the left. I think it is a dance just for popular consumption. Some in the media are really talking this up.

Seek's avatar

Unfortunately, if those that think the answer obvious do not argue, the ones that stand against logic, reason, and humanity are the ones that win the support of the public by default.

JLeslie's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I see your point. But, if the Dems had just said “fine” from the very beginning, or never tried to get it covered then it would not seem like a win for the Republicans, it would have been a non-issue.

laureth's avatar

If they’d never have tried to get it covered, it would make me wonder what other care isn’t covered. Will we pick and choose coverage based on what’s medically necessary, or based on theology?

Seek's avatar

Exactly, @laureth

It would be the exact opposite of a non-issue. It would be an issue of a religious group dictating the laws of our country, and the rights of women. That is unacceptable.

JLeslie's avatar

But, is it no abortions in any situation? I am still unclear? If it is medically necessary will they cover it, or are the Republicans fighting for none to be covered? I agree with how you first stated it @Seek_Kolinahr if medically necessary it’s covered. If elective, not covered.

laureth's avatar

News story link.

It’s complicated.

janbb's avatar

I don’t know all the details but the problem with denying coverage for it under government plans is that it means we go back to the old situation where rich women who need/want abortions can afford to get them while poor women who need/want abortions can’t. The idea of offering is as a separate coverage is pretty bogus because most women don’t think in advance that they may want abortion coverge which will mean it is either a very expensive product or unprofitable for the insurance companies to sell so they will not offer it. I think the question is moot and it’s probably gone, but I do feel it is a loss to social justice in this country.

JLeslie's avatar

@janbb I know that fed funds are not currently used for abortions, but I think maybe local gov’t funds are?? I am still unclear on that. Anyway, poor people get abortions now, maybe that is from private donations?

janbb's avatar

@JLeslie I know that a lot of it is from private organizations such as Planned Parenthood; don’t know whether there is public funding sometimes as well.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther