Nelson amendment bars any private insurance from covering abortion if they receive federal subsidies

[Nikki Stone1]

"The amendment by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., would bar any private insurance company from offering plans to cover abortion if they receive federal subsidies. In practice the restriction would apply to most plans within a proposed new insurance marketplace, or exchange, since most people shopping in the exchange would be using federal subsidies to purchase coverage.

The amendment also would block a proposed new government insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

Joining Nelson in sponsoring the amendment was another anti-abortion Democrat, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, along with eight Republicans. The measure is unlikely to get the necessary 60 votes to pass, but Nelson has threatened to oppose the underlying health care legislation if it doesn't."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

The fact that almost all insurance companies will be in the exchange and will be receiving subsidies for low-income buyers means effectively that ALL abortion coverage would be banned. In order to buy abortion coverage, you would have to purchase a plan that is NOT involved in the government exchange. One wonders what kind of fly-by-night companies would not be involved in the exchange, since most major carriers will be pulled in to get all those new mandatory consumers and all those government subsidies.

This will leave Planned Parenthood (and a handful of clinics), often threatened by anti-choice terrorists, as the only place left to get an affordable abortion for not only the poor but working and middle class women. This will mean that women WITH insurance will not be able to have an abortion in a hospital and have it covered. This effectively marginalizes abortion as a public health service and sets an extra obstacle in place for women without the means to pay for a hospital abortion out of pocket.

Nelson will do with this amendment (if it passes) what Operation Rescue never could: effectively stop abortion as an extremely safe and legitimate procedure.

[Lars39]

1. These women-hating men truly need their dicks slammed repeatedly in a heavy oak door.

And then legislation needs to be written that their insurance company won't cover 'em. :grr:

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Really, it's the problem of having government involved in private insurance

A private company should be able to insure whatever legal medical procedures people are willing to pay to have insured and whatever the company deems is profitable for themselves. When the government gets involved and starts legislating what companies can do and not do based on personal predilection of certain lawmakers, we are in trouble.

[Lars39]

3. Yep, it goes further than just denying coverage to an individual.

They wanted to push as far as they could.

[rhett o rick]

16. I disagree. First of all private insurance companies are free to do what they want if they

dont accept tax money. If they accept tax money they are subject to the laws that the taxpayers want via their elected representatives. The fact that the private insurance companies are operating without government interference is why we are where we are today. The private insurance companies can deny who ever and what ever procedure they want now. Sen Nelson is elected and accountable to his constituents. Not so the CEO of Aetna.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. rhett, in order to be part of the exchange, you will HAVE to accept tax money for low income folks

It's part of being in the exchange.

And no insurance company is going to want to be out of the exchange because of the huge customer base and monies involved.

It's that simple.

And as far as this comment:

"Sen Nelson is elected and accountable to his constituents. Not so the CEO of Aetna."

His constituents include pro-choice men and women who have chosen the party platform and Nelson as their representative of that platform. And where you got that in order to guarantee all legal medical procedures for women that he has to be working for Aetna is just illogical "rhett-o-ric".

[robinlynne]

38. of course. poster was perahps just trying to see if it slipped by.

[rhett o rick]

40. Maybe, but I honestly cant tell from the responses. nt

[rhett o rick]

25. First of all it should be illegal for private insurers to provide primary care insurance.

It is illegal in most modern countries.

Second, if we ARE going to allow private insurance companies to provide insurance for primary care, they must be closely regulated by laws past by our elected Congress.

Private insurance companies have demonstrated that without government control they are free to do whatever they want. They can deny coverage and drop anyone. They do that today. They can also choose to not cover abortions if they so feel like it. Their responsibility is to make a profit.


Our only hope with getting decent health care insurance is via the government as overseen by our elected representatives in Congress. The fact that many Congress-critters, like Nelson, are not representing their constituents is a problem we need to fix. It's done via the ballot box. If that system doesn’t work, we are lost anyway.

[robinlynne]

39. right on.

[omega minimo]

21. LOL

[ThomCat]

23. I'll vote for that.

Any man who supports this anti-choice legislation deserves to feel some heavy backlash. :grr:

[Lars39]

26. Thanks for your support, ThomCat!

Good to see you. :hug:

[ThomCat]

28. Good to see you too.

:hug:

I'm not around much right now. But I do pop in, and I'll always support a good idea when I see it. :)

[me b zola]

4. One more reason to say:

Fuck you Ben Nelson.

[Nikki Stone1]

22. Yup.

.

[spanone]

5. it. will. not. pass.

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Lets hope not.

But will that be the death knell for the health insurance bill?

[saracat]

8. That was what was said about Stupak.

[Nikki Stone1]

11. Exactly.

..

[saracat]

6. One would think that the GOP would even be offended at the invasion

of private pocketbooks alone. This actually dictates what citizens can purchase with their own funds.Perhaps here the argument let the "free market" decide would be apt. I just cannot believe that all this nonsense is being spearheaded by an alleged Democrat.Our once great party has been reduced to the dregsof humanity who oppose basic civil rights for women.
This is what happens when those who do not support your belif system are allowed to infiltrate and corrupt at the request of party leaders like Emmanuel.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Nope. The GOP supported this insurance intrusion in Virginia: to deny domestic

partners insurance, even when a private company already insured them.

One of our DUers went through hell with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1356105#1356447

[waiting for hope]

9. Off to the GP with thee -

K&R

[inna]

12. Fascist bastards.

I don't understand why more people are not livid about this.

:grr:

[KamaAina]

13. Faux did it again! They put a 'D' next to the bad guy's name!

oh, wait a minute, Nelson really is a Dem. Or is he? :eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

14. Nelson and Casey are Democrats.

Women were told not to worry about these anti-choicers in the party and vote for Democrats anyway. Look what that brought us.

[KamaAina]

17. With Dems* like that, who needs repukes?

which was pretty much the point.

[saracat]

27. And to think they had a perfectly good pro-choice female candidate in Penn but Rahm nixed her.

[progressoid]

15. I was going to say that he should just switch to the Repube party.

But, sadly he knows he would never get elected as an R. He's too liberal for Nebraska R's. :banghead:

[shraby]

18. Since the Supremes said that abortion is legal under

the constitution, wouldn't the Stupak amendment and the Nelson amendment effectively send both health care bills back to the drawing board? They would render the House bill and the Senate bill unconstitutional if the final bill is challenged.

[Nikki Stone1]

19. I don't think so. This might fall under "federal funding for abortions" (Hyde amendment)

in a twisted way.

[Thothmes]

34. The HC reform legislation has nothing to do with

allowing abortions, which is constitutionally protected. Rather who pays for it. There is no constitutional requirement for the federal government to pay for an abortion. That is why the Hyde amendment has been in place for several decades now.

[kelly1mm]

35. How so? One could still pay for an abortion out of pocket.

By the way, this is what those on medicaid (the very poor) have to do now as the Hyde amendment already outlaws direct federal payments for abortion. That is why some here (myself included) felt that the outrage against the Stupac amendment was a little disingenuous and was based on the "middle class" getting it's ox gored. It seemed to be fine and dandy when it was just the poor getting screwed. Not that either Stupac or Hyde are OK - just pointing out the contradiction - something to think about.

[Odin2005]

24. Fucking women haters!

These bastards deserve to be taken out behind the woodshed and be castrated.

[TwilightGardener]

29. More worthwhile work from the Benator--

:eyes: . Why not require the insurance co's who want in on the exchange to create a separate pool (call it private reproductive care, or whatever) for things like abortion, infertility treatments, viagra, etc., that someone can opt into for coverage with their own additional money, and put the subsidy money into the general pool?

[kctim]

30. Brilliant idea!

[Nikki Stone1]

31. Because low income people who get subsidized would be cut out of such a plan.

.

[TwilightGardener]

32. Not if the additional separate premium is fairly low--that's the point

of including infertility treatments and Viagra, BTW, rather than just making it an "abortion rider"--the more people that participate, the cheaper it is, and then we eliminate tax dollars going for abortion AND stiffies and IVF treatments and such. I don't know if my little "separate fund" idea should encompass sterilizations and birth control or not...I'm thinking not. It was just a thought, though.

[Nikki Stone1]

33. Hmm

Let me think about this one.

[branders seine]

36. the gene pool needs some chlorine

and the Capitol needs a total overhaul.

[Nikki Stone1]

37. I like that turn of phrase.

I'll have to remember it. :)