"Should complications suffered from illegal abortions be covered by insurance?"

[chimpymustgo]

Provocative "tweet" to pro-life knuckle dragger on C-SPAN. Oh - they'll let you have that.

Good follow-up question: what about "right to life" for people dying from lack of health care?

Our Democratic leaders had better get their heads out of their asses and protect women's rights - or they will will be PUNISHED.

[laughingliberal]

1. Hmmm. Generally insurance does not cover complications which result from

non-covered procedures. For example it does not cover cosmetic procedures and, therefore, will not cover complications resulting from same.

[adamuu]

6. I don't see how it would be different (in terms of claim) from slipping up with a kitchen knife

while cooking, or whatever
which is covered, of course.
IANAL

[laughingliberal]

13. Slipping up with a kitchen knife is considered an accident in most cases.

Having a non-covered procedure is not. I'm not defending the practices of the insurance cartels. I'm just telling you how they do business. AFAIC, the insurance cartels could all go away tomorrow and may the people who profited on them rot in hell.

[dgibby]

16. Not if your name is Lorena Bobbitt. n/t

[HelenWheels]

2. they should cover abortions

it's legal and it should be covered. If it's against their "beliefs" they should get into a different line of work.

[chimpymustgo]

3. You said it! I don't want to cover dick hardeners (which would NEVER be stripped from bill).

I am stunned at the silence and acquiescence among "progressives" on this issue.

[Skinner]

4. Good question. I am curious:

How did the pro-life knuckle-dragger respond?

[chimpymustgo]

5. He conceded that the complications should be covered.

I attempted to indicate that in my OP - typing in real time - so my account was not entirely clear. Still interesting...

I hope this debate is FAR from over - at least till we get abortion rights and coverage back to the status quo.

[ipaint]

7. Coverage for birth control isn't in any of the bills, including the current house bill.

It also wasn't included in the cbo scoring.

[rurallib]

8. This may not be relevant, but I am sure vasectomies are covered.

but then that is to the man's benefit.

[Hepburn]

9. Man? Vasectomy?

LMBO...

...in undergrad school, I worked as an ER tech and the regular ER doc was a urologist. At the side of the ER bays was a private treatment room and during the down times, tghe doc could use the room to do private patients for vasectomies.

Do you have a clue on how many of these big, brave macho assholes canceled out at the last minute so their wives/girlfriends could have her tubes tied instead?

Sheeeeeeeesh....

[Kalyke]

14. My husband had one so I didn't have to get my tubes tied.

I am kind of like the Princess and the Pea when it comes to hormonal changes in my body (can't take the Pill or steroids or progesterone and knew within a day of becoming pregnant that I was, indeed, with child); therefore, we didn't want to risk complicating anything that wasn't a "normal" change in my hormonal structure, so he did it - and I sat in the room and talked to him during the procedure.

He's my big, brave man. :hug:

[chimpymustgo]

11. And dick hardeners are probably free.

[sufrommich]

10. Birth control isn't covered ? At all? Can that be true?

[jbnow]

12. Would coverage for birth control have to be specifically included

to be covered?

It is exclusions that meed to be spelled out...are you saying that is what bills do? They explicitly say birth control is not covered.
(If so did the pope write this bill?)

I'd think the yelling would be louder about bc not being covered, that would be stupid and have a much higher cost overall.
Most women will never have an abortion and very few ever have more than 1 or 2 in a lifetime. Most women will use birth control for many years

[ipaint]

17. There is a section in 3962 that spells out mandatory basic benefits

Mammograms, well baby, well child etc. No birth control and it is in none of the bills nor was it even included in the cbo scoring.

It may very well be they intend to include it but shouldn't somebody be making sure. And figuring in the cost especially now that there is a very strong possibility abortion won't be.


They seem to be able to spell out everything else-

"None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/lerner

[chimpymustgo]

19. OMG. You should post this as a separate OP.

"None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/lerner

That's "leaving OFF the list", in cast someone misses the split infinitive.

[ipaint]

20. I did and also in several other threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6996495&mesg_id=6996495

[gkhouston]

21. Even though birth control would be cheaper to cover a pregnancy and the resulting child.

:mad: Looks like someone's "cost consciousness" is a bit skewed.

[ipaint]

22. It certainly is class warfare. n/t

[get the red out]

15. All women must die

I think that the right wing just wants all women to die because we are evil because of Eve and God said so, and without us they could claim to be pure and have no nasty, disgusting sex (which they would lie about because they would still have sex and Ted Haggard would be SUPER CHRISTIAN, and extremely popular). :crazy:

[csziggy]

18. Which "illegal abortions" are you talking about?

First trimester abortions are legal, second trimester a little more restricted but still legal. Third trimester abortions are usually because of medically necessity, not choice and in most states are still legal.

So which "illegal abortions" would there be a problem with insurance coverage currently? Which would change under the Stupak Amendment?

[noamnety]

23. I'm guessing it would be ones that aren't done in clinics

when women can't afford medical care in legal clinics run by doctors, they turn to other alternatives, whether they are surgical, chemical, or something else.

[csziggy]

24. Yep, sounds like it since abortions are legal at the moment

It is just that the OP's question was asking about "illegal abortions" and I would like to know which ones he means.