RSS Feed MenuAs part of the deal-making to pass healthcare, conservative Democrats joined House Republicans in passing the anti-abortion Stupak amendment.
The amendment would forbid the coverage of abortion by any insurance policy sold through a health exchange.
Supporters of the pro-life cause argue that the Stupak amendment maintains the status quo. Since 1977, federal law has prohibited the use of any federal money to procure an abortion. Since the health exchanges will benefit from federal subsidies, the pro-lifers argue, the 1977 policy should apply to them as well.
But until now, relatively few women of childbearing age have had the benefit of federal funding. Poor women on Medicaid, under-18 girls on S-Chip, military women, and women who use the Indian Health Service were affected. But most women of childbearing age are enrolled in private coverage, and private plans almost always cover medically necessary abortions.
If the House bill or something like it becomes law, more women will shift into policies sold via exchanges. At first only a few women will purchase policies there, but over time, more and more. These exchanges mingle public and private dollars on complex sliding scales of subsidy. That almost certainly will mean no abortion coverage for any exchange-sold policy, whether the individual purchaser herself receives a subsidy or not.
More government = less choice, in every sense of that word “choice.”
SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 10, 2009 at 11:06 am
Independent wrote: “I have to agree with MI-GOP on this one, spartacus. I don’t think his points, if true, are ingorant but I do see you trying very hard to discredit the superior argument, butressed with facts.”
I’m not calling his points about the Michigan plan ignorant. I’m saying his ignorance about the public option in CA did not stop him from forming the opinion that it has ruined competition in the state. Neither he, nor Sinz nor any other poster on this site has been able to deal with the simple fact that there is a robust public option in CA that (1) does not rely on tax money, (2) has not run private insurers out of the market, (3) has lowered premiums, and (4) has made insurance available to every single business in the state.
Until you can reconcile this with the theoretical fears of a national public option, your arguments seem very weak.
MI-GOPer // Nov 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Sparty-is-brain-dead writes: “I’m saying his ignorance about the public option in CA did not stop him from forming the opinion that it has ruined competition in the state.”
Nope, I didn’t but like a good barricade watcher for the Obama Kamp as the revolution edges nearer you used your vast power of ignorance to miss my opening point… which was “I don’t know, sparty; but in Michigan, 22 yrs ago”… note the I don’t know –which neither dismisses nor agrees with your point about the public option in CA… merely steps aside of it and offers a far more compelling, complete review of a worker comp public option experience in Michigan?
Nawh, I didn’t think you could note that. It would, as others here rightly point out, destroy your inferior example and blunt your partisan powers of persuasion. Sparty-is-brain-dead writes: “… your arguments seem very weak”. Not at all, sparty. It’s only been 11 months but it seems all that time on the Obama barricades has left you punch-drunk and a bit tone deaf.
Don’t worry, in 2010 and 2012, I think there’ll be some Change and Hope chasing your team from the barricades and ramparts around the Obama. That’s if the Chicago Thugs don’t play more voter fraud games ala Karzai.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 10, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Mi-Goper wrote: “note the I don’t know –which neither dismisses nor agrees with your point about the public option in CA…”
But, Mi-GOPer earlier wrote: “It is a pure fallacy to argue that a govt run public option will bring competition to the marketplace.”
Is Mi-GOPer stupid or what?
MI-GOPer // Nov 10, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Sorry, Sparty-Is-Brain-Dead, but the claim of stupid is borne out by your moniker, dewd. You’re tone deaf and punch drunk from all those hours manning the losing team’s barricade around the Obama.
I was wrong about one thing: “It is a pure fallacy to argue that a govt run public option will bring competition to the marketplace. And only a pathological liar like Obama or Pelosi can get away with spinning that lie and still sleep at night.”
I should have added your name to the list of Obama and Pelosi. Spinners all. You really need to either man-up or get a better act.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 11, 2009 at 12:10 am
Instead of addressing the substance of my post, Mi-GOPer, formerly known as EscapeVelocity, goes off on another childish rant.
The fact remains, no poster on this site has been able to deal with the simple fact that there is a robust public option in CA that (1) does not rely on tax money, (2) has not run private insurers out of the market, (3) has lowered premiums, and (4) has made insurance available to every single business in the state.