Politifact fact checking: Health care reform and the Anti-Abortion Insurance Coverage amendment

[Tx4obama]

Here's what the Stupak amendment stipulated:

• The public option -- the government-run program on the exchange -- may not offer abortion except in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered.

• Private insurers that accept customers who pay with affordability credits may not offer abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. The affordability credits are subsidies the federal government intends to give to low-income people to help them pay for health insurance. Individuals may purchase abortion coverage, either as part of a policy or as a separate rider, as long as they do not pay with affordability credits or state Medicaid matching funds.

• Insurers may offer coverage that includes abortion or separate supplemental plans covering abortion. But customers must pay premiums entirely with non-government funds, and the insurer's administrative costs must be covered entirely by non-government funds. Insurers can't mingle funds from people who use affordability credits to buy coverage with those who do not.

• Insurers that offer a coverage plan that includes abortion must also offer a plan that does not include abortion.

Read the whole article here: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/nov/09/health-care-reform-abortion-amendment/

.

[villager]

1. And yet, stunningly, Stupak has its defenders on this board

"Stupak is as Stupak does?"

[Tx4obama]

2. I am not defending Stupak

But at the same time I do not support insurance coverage of 'elective abortions' in the public option exchange.
I do not believe that the cost of elective abortions should be distributed to the other people in the exchange.

There is NOTHING in the HRC bill that takes any rights away from women to have abortions.
Women still have the right to take their own money and have as many abortions as they please.

Stupak is 'an insurance' issue, not an abortion issue.

THE HCR BILL NEEDS TO PASS WITHOUT DELAY!

[saracat]

3. But women will still have to pay mandates just as males do but males will have no exempted coverage!

And poor women, who are the ones most in need of health care will be the most imnpacted by this. But hey, as long as YOU are okay with that what the heck! Right? :sarcasm:

[Tx4obama]

4. But...

But no matter how much you hate it ....

Legally...
It has been against the law since the 1970s via THE HYDE Amendment for any federal funds to fund abortion.
And that includes the affordability credits which will be given to low income people, which are federal funds, may not be used to purchase abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

The 'poor' won't be in the exchange. They will be on Medicaid.
If you are on Medicaid then there is no mandate for you to purchase insurance.

[villager]

6. Exactly -- so now the tentacles of Hyde-ism reach into the middle class

That's what Stupak is designed for.

To spread the "de-franchising," as it were....

[saracat]

7. Stop it. it all depends on the definition of poor ,I suppose. There is going to be subsidized

insurance to help those who have problems paying the "mandates. Not all those will be on Medicaid or meet whatever definition of "poor" that will then be in use.And BTW, according to Rep.Degette, this also makes Hyde"permanent" instead of renewable. One must also ask WTF these people have been doing since the 70's to renew it and why do we still have it?

[Tx4obama]

8. We still have it because...

We still have it because there are a lot of people that do not believe in tax-payer funded abortions.

[saracat]

10. But they still believe that women should pay mandates?

And because they do not believe abortions are health care, their religion gets to dictate medical care for those who cannot afford to provide heath care other than through the government plan. they are punishing women who do not have afford ability.

[Marlana]

5. Stupak IS an abortion issue.

You should read http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/09/will-stupak-amendment-force-women-whove-miscarried-lose-insurance-coverage-i-think-so">this from RHReality Check, it talks about how nebulous the term "elective abortion" really is.

[Tx4obama]

9. That's just silly....

People don't decide to have a miscarriage - like they do when they decide to have an elective abortion.

[saracat]

11. Don't be dense. it isn't about deciding to have an abortion Stupak doesn't use the term "elective"

Read this:

Wording unclear = no insurance coverage
As a former employee of the insurance industry, I can tell you that the wording of the Stupak amendment absolutely does leave room to interpret it the way the author says: disallowing coverage to remove the dead fetus by performing a D & C after a natural miscarriage. It also absolutely does allow insurers or government administrators of the new plan to disallow coverage for removal of a pregnancy that threatens the health of the mother (such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or pregnancy of a woman who has one of many other medical conditions that leave little or no hope of the possibility of a safe pregnancy.) When insurers, or government officials with authority over them don't want something to be covered, and there is the slightest ambiguity in the wording of the regulations, believe me, the insurers won't pay for it or the government won't allow them to pay for it.

Submitted by mariekw on November 9, 2009 - 11:41pm.

[Ineeda]

12. The use of the term "elective abortion" is offensive and

a dead giveaway. When has an abortion in the US not been elective? This phraseology implies that the decision women make to have abortions is as frivolous as decisions to have other "elective" procedures.
(repeat of my post on Sunday)

[mmonk]

13. Thanks for posting. I was not aware of the exceptions since

the anti-abortion people generally are against any.