I propose that since women will not receive complete health coverage under this bill

[saracat]

that their mandated premeiums be only 40% of the premiums males pay in a similar age group. They should also be offerred discounted private access in non affliated companies to the healthcare they are denied. What about this as a solution. it could always be "fixed" later.

[FLDCVADem]

1. I don't see that this change anything

Insurance didn't have to cover abortion before, they won't have to now. Feds didn't pay for abortion before, they won't pay for them now.

[NYC_SKP]

4. +1 nt

[Sparkly]

5. Oh my God...

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

[xchrom]

7. where did you get the notion that there are no insurance plans that pay for abortion?

there certainly are.

now it has become increasingly difficult to find a dr. to perform the surgery than before -- even more so if you are poor.

[FLDCVADem]

9. Who said that there are no plans that pay for abortions?

I said that no plans are required to pay for abortions, which is true.

[madfloridian]

13. Read this

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5189

[xchrom]

17. did you say this?

'Insurance didn't have to cover abortion before, they won't have to now.' etc?

because -- no they didn't have to -- but they did -- most assuredly.

and if it was a condition related to health -- of the mother -- can you imagine the lawsuit of they didn't?

what happened is that abortion services were squeezed from the other end -- net result fewer and fewer provider willing to extend the services/surgery.

[FLDCVADem]

20. I've had 4 different private plans

And none of them have covered elective abortion services - medically necessary abortion procedures only.

[Sparkly]

25. "Medically necessary" - This is NOT PROVIDED for.

"Elective" means what -- you can choose whether or not to keep a dead or non-viable fetus in your uterus? Is that "elective?"

How about, if you don't have an abortion, you'll suffer health problems? Your choice. Is that "elective?"

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THE HEALTH OF THE WOMAN. Only when it's a matter of her life, period.

[FLDCVADem]

33. Or rape or incest

And the amendment does not apply to employer-based plans, nor does it ban offering policies with abortion in the exchange.

Nothing is different today than it was yesterday, other than the hysteria.

[Sparkly]

19. Wrong.

No private insurance can even provide/cover abortion services if they take ONE subsidized patient.

[xchrom]

28. operatve word -- subsidized,

i've certainly known women get abortions through their insurance.

now did they fix things up with their drs -- or was it allowed?

but abortions were and are performed under private insurance. -- IF a woman can find a dr to perform it.

[Sparkly]

29. One more time...

Insurers could not provide/cover ANY abortion services to ANYone if they have just ONE patient who had subsidies coverage for a flu shot or warts or whatever.

[xchrom]

30. sorry i didn't hear your absolute universal declaration the first time. nt

[FLDCVADem]

34. Please stop telling this lie

Exchange insurance companies must provide an exact non-abortion policy for every policy they offer with abortion. The non-abortion policy can be purchased by subsidized patients, the abortion policy can be purchased by anyone that is not receiving federal subsidies.

There is nothing in this bill that prohibits exchange insurance companies from offering policies with abortion coverage, it just limits who can buy those policies.

[saracat]

51. Yeah limits all who can't afford it separately and don't be naive.

This is a first step to prohibiting it entirely.Why do you think , finally, all the pro-choice groups are speaking out against this?

[Sparkly]

2. Or a women's collective...

Maybe we need our own "coop" of some kind, just to access legal rights. It's like having the right to vote, but no ballot.

It's crazy.

[saracat]

15. We need something. We are second class citizens.

And the stupidity on DU is amazing.They have no idea what the Stupak Amendment calls for and insist it doesn't change anything.

[Sparkly]

18. Yes, I'm astonished.

:wow:

[emulatorloo]

3. You are aware of the Hyde Amendment, which passed in 1976?

That is when federal funds were restricted from paying for abortions.

I do not exactly understand the point of the Stupak amendment, as it is already against the law for federal funds to go to abortions. I guess the fundies just wanted to tickle their kook base or something.

At anyrate, it would be good if the Hyde Amendment could be gotten rid of.

But it has been around for a long time and did not just happen tonight.

[Sparkly]

6. I can't believe this is DU.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

[emulatorloo]

8. Why? The Hyde Amendment does exist. (And Personally I think the Stupak thing is illegal

so I doubt it will make it thru the process. If Abortion is legal, how can stupak restrict what private insurance will pay?)

[Sparkly]

12. ::sigh::

If Congress said, "No food stamps for any supermarket offering red labels on foods," they'd thus make it legal. (And nobody would produce or stock red labels.)

This extends the Hyde amendment a great deal.

[emulatorloo]

16. Boehner was making a big show out of trying to guarentee Stupak will make it to the final bill

He got rebuffed.

You seem to think I support Stupak, I don't. Like you I will be calling my Reps and Senators about it. But I am not big on overheated rhetoric and hyperbole.

[Sparkly]

23. I heard that exchange

I don't think anyone here supports that amendment, but I DO think many here don't understand it and consider it a worthwhile "compromise."

[emulatorloo]

27. I think those who see it as a "worthwhile compromise" believe it will be eliminated in conference

I could be wrong, but I doubt any DU'er thinks stupak is a good idea.

[madfloridian]

11. DU now accepts anything the party does....even if wrong.

And this is a slam at women, like we don't count.

[emulatorloo]

21. Go ahead and mischaracterize me, I don't care

If you think I think stupak is a "good idea" you are wrong. It is just that some of these posts are acting as if Roe V Wade had been overturned tonight. The overheated rhetoric just gets to me sometimes.

Stupak seems illegal to me, I am going to call my Reps and Sens to make sure they get rid of it.

[Jamastiene]

22. +1

We really don't count, apparently.

[xchrom]

36. +2

[dana_b]

43. we don't

except when they need us to vote

[tekisui]

49. Yep.

[saracat]

10. You are aware that this makes the Hyde amendment "permanent ' instead of renewable/

You are aware that this banns "private" insurance companies who participate in the exchange from covering abortions? You are aware that in order to compete all other insurance companies will drop abortions? And federal dollars do cover abortions overseas, just not in the USA.We fund clinics that provide abortions.

[emulatorloo]

24. Yes that is why I guestion the legality of it.

[Sparkly]

26. Um, Congress makes laws.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

14. I recommended this.

.

[saracat]

35. Thanks but the unrec squad doesn't allow talk of women's issues.

[left coaster]

38. Every other group of people who get shit on can get angry..

..and vent about it here.. except for women.. cuz, you know, it ain't lady-like..

[NMMNG]

31. Lysistrata

Let the bastards go without sex. They'll be giving women health care for the same price as men, with comprehensive family planning services (including abortion) in no time. Otherwise they can just make good friends with their right hands for the rest of their lives.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Well, we do get the option of an "abortion rider".

Which means we get to go on record proclaiming that we are sluts sexually active and may require an abortion at some point.

[madrchsod]

39. i guess it`s back to rue water and darning needles for all you bad girls....

i really am having a hard time understanding why guys like this have no respect for women.
maybe i`m just different cause i was raised to respect women and their decisions.

[madrchsod]

37. gee i was right about this shit but

i did`t realize it was a democratic that put the pile of shit on the table....


i think that`s all i can say about this without getting rude and very crude...

[1]

40. or... women could pay more because their health care costs are greater, and we...

establish a committee to determine why you think abortion costs are at least 20%, if not more, of womens health care costs.

20%? really?

[saracat]

42. Did you really need me to use the sarcasm smiley? I was making a point

that others clearly got. I am sorry it escaped you.

[Liquorice]

41. I agree. What's sad is Hillary Clinton would have never let health care reform that doesn't

support women go through like this. Ever.

[bluetrain]

44. Yeah, and the same reason this was passed was the same reason she wasn't the nominee. Misogyny

trumps all bigotry in today's America.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. Yes, that's why I didn't vote for her. Misogyny

:eyes:

I voted for Kucinich in the primary. I must hate women.

[winyanstaz]

45. women need to get mad about this....

This bill needs to not be passed as it stands...this is just wrong on so many levels..
K & R

[juno jones]

47. K&R!

WHat I don't understand is that they admit medicare wasn't perfect when it was released so why can't we simply go back and 'perfect' it now? They point to revisiting all those bills, so why can't we simply revisit medicare now rather than reinventing the wheel?

This Stupak Am.(At least it has a provacatively ugly name that conjures both 'stupor' and 'stupidity') is the shit garnish on this whole thing, although some of the debates about charging women more simply for being women were unnerving as well.

[niyad]

48. kick--completely agree with you

[Romulox]

50. Actually, since this is a "free market" solution, women should have to pay actuarially determined

rates.

Otherwise, you're just asking men to subsidize the portion of the private insurer's profits that you otherwise be required to hand over. It's hard to square private profits with these kind of non-means tested subsidies.