Politifact: Stupak amendment did not change status quo
posted at 3:35 pm on November 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Maybe the White House will pay attention to the Politifact deconstruction of the Democratic argument that Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment represented a quantum setback for abortion rights in the US. The St. Petersburg Times fact-checking feature labels the argument, offered in this case by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), “false.” The Stupak amendment does nothing other than maintain the status quo on barring federal funds from paying any portion of the costs of abortions:
For this item, we’ll explore whether she is correct that it puts new restrictions on abortion coverage in the private market even when women would pay their own premium.
On one issue right off the bat, we believe Lowey is misleading. The Stupak amendment — which now accounts for about four pages of the nearly 2,000-page bill — does not address the entire “private health insurance market.” Rather, it addresses how abortion coverage would be handled within the health insurance “exchanges” included in the Democratic-sponsored House health care bill. These exchanges would provide a virtual marketplace for health insurance for those who do not already have coverage through their employer or through a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid.
The exchange is designed for people who are self-employed or work for very small businesses — but it would serve at most a small fraction of Americans, since most people get their insurance either through their employer, a spouse’s employer or through existing government programs. So, by not specifying that she’s talking about how abortion coverage would be handled in the exchange, Lowey immediately makes the issue seem to affect many more people than it actually does.
And she makes an additional, and we believe more significant, misrepresentation when she says that abortion coverage would be restricted for beneficiaries “even when they would pay premiums with their own money.” …
People who choose to receive the subsidies would indeed face more significant restrictions on abortion coverage. If they want a plan with abortion coverage, they would have to buy a separate, add-on plan for abortion coverage known as a “rider,” using their own money.
But Lowey said the amendment “puts new restrictions on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money.” We believe that Lowey’s formulation is, at best, misleading. The people who would truly pay all of the premium with their own money — and who would not use federal subsidies at all — are not barred in any way from obtaining abortion coverage, even if they obtain their insurance from the federally administered health exchange.
Women who seek abortions now have to use their own money to pay for them, even if they are eligible for Medicaid or other government-funded health insurance. The Stupak language just maintains that status quo. It does nothing to make abortions illegal or even make private insurance coverage for abortions more difficult to obtain than it is now. All it does is ensure that insurance plans offered through the health-insurance exchanges do not cover abortions (as the consumer gets federal subsidies to purchase them), and that any abortion coverage is purchased outside of the exchange and its subsidies.
When Obama talks about being concerned that Stupak has somehow transformed the status quo, he’s either badly informed on what it actually does or is being entirely disingenuous as a predicate to strip the language in committee. Politifact has it right; it preserves the status quo and does nothing to interfere with the current ability of women to get abortions on their own.
However, Politifact addresses another argument from pro-abortion advocates that relates much more closely to another issue conservatives have with the bill:
Some in the abortion-rights community do actually make a stronger case that the amendment would harm individuals who pay for their coverage without subsidies. This line of argument involves what insurance companies might do from a business perspective in response to the amendment.
Some critics say that the amendment throws up enough obstacles against offering abortion coverage on the health exchange — particularly the requirement to offer two separate plans, one of them without abortion provisions — that insurers will simply take the path of least resistance and offer a single plan that leaves out abortion coverage. Some also argue that companies will be reluctant to offer riders for abortion coverage, or that there won’t be much demand for them. This could indirectly diminish the abortion coverage options for people on the exchange who don’t take subsidies, even though the law doesn’t limit their options directly.
This is a “price signals” argument that actually plays into the debate over “comparative effectiveness” panels and the public option. The argument here is that the lack of publicly-funded coverage (and a lack of demand) will disincentivize insurers from offering abortion-coverage riders. The same could be said about the price signals from “recommendations” in the government plan over which treatments to cover, for whom, and when, made by the Comparative Effectiveness Panel. Those defending the CEP argued that they only applied to government-payer programs, but this argument seems to accept the price-signals argument that the Left categorically rejected with the comparative-effectiveness panel controversy.
If insurers opted out of abortion coverage thanks to price signals from the health-insurance exchanges, then certainly insurers would take signals on claims based on CEP decisions and their impact on compensation to providers — and the ranges of options for treatment would narrow for everyone.
At any rate, the anger over the Stupak amendment is either misplaced, or a byproduct of the Left having been blocked from pulling a bait-and-switch on health care to get federally-funded abortions. I’m pretty sure it’s the latter rather than the former.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Gee, Ed, who’s side are you on?
Blake on November 10, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Neither. In fact, Obama and the rabid left are 100% correct. If Pelosicare does what it’s designed to do, which is to eventually eliminate private insurance, hence making all plans “federally subsidized,” then none will be able to provide funding for abortion services.
Certainly, were there any private (non-subsidized) insurance companies available, they would be free to offer coverage for abortions. But there won’t be. Barney Frank himself, has admitted it.
notropis on November 10, 2009 at 3:41 PM
What I don’t get is…status quo or not, why Stupak raised such a fit, about having this amendment at all. In the end, what was the point? His argument apparently wasn’t retaining the status quo, his argument was, having his amendment voted on. Either way, he was going to go against the wishes of his constituents, and vote for that crap…and he did.
His principles on abortion, are as fake as his argument over his amendment.
capejasmine on November 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM
As Rush Limbaugh said once on one of his programs, you can tell what bills have and what they don’t have by looking to see who is screaming and yelling.
La Raza and Illegal Alien lobbyists weren’t screaming over the Healthcare Bill. Result: Healthcare Bill covers Illegal Aliens.
Planned Parenthood and Abortion Activists weren’t screaming over the Healthcare Bill. Result: Healthcare Bill covered abortions.
Until now, that is. Planned Parenthood and Abortion Activists are screaming their heads off. Result: Healthcare Bill won’t cover abortions with the Stupak Amendment.
Enoxo on November 10, 2009 at 3:48 PM
I think you’re missing the point. The ultimate goal of the Democrats is to replace all private health insurance with a government-run care. So if health care is to be supplied by the government, then you cannot allow for private funding of health care. Thus if abortion, which the Dems believe to be simply another aspect of health care, is not funded by the government, it is not funded at all.
That’s why the Pro-Abortion forces are up in arms over the ammendment. They’re in the process of re-inventing how health care is delivered and you cannot rely on old paradigms to interpret what this means for abortion.
PackerBronco on November 10, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Nancy Pelosi is driving the Mustang over the cliff ala Thelma and Louise… The Democratic Party is in the truck…
Rule #1: when somebody is commiting suicide, step away so they can’t grab you…
Khun Joe on November 10, 2009 at 3:48 PM
So why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth…on both sides?
SouthernGent on November 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Stupak wanted the amendment because the Pelosi plan would have changed the status quo towards funding abortions. Pro-life politicians wanted to keep that status quo. It did not ban abortions or interfere with private funding of abortion, but kept public funds from paying for them.
Not sure what the question “which side are you on” means in this context. I think I’ve been very clear about being on the pro-life side.
Ed Morrissey on November 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Yes, it’s interesting that the left’s argument against this amendment is that mandating/restricting something in the publicly-funded plans will necessarily extend to private plans. Isn’t that what they tried to convince everybody wouldn’t happen when they said nobody’s private plans would be affected?
CityFish on November 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Thank you for the clarification, Ed. Very much appreciated.
capejasmine on November 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM
like they won’t try and just change the language if it gets passed anyways. their word is NOT their bond.
search4truth on November 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM
In a nutshell, the departure from the current status quo on abortion is that the HCR bill (as it now stands with the Stupak-Pitts amendment) also requires that any insurance company that participates in the exchange has to offer the same policies in the exchange as it does in the open market to prevent insurers from offering substandard policies to the poor while extending better policies to those who are better off. So assuming a big chunk of the insurance market action will be on the exchange, every insurer will want to participate, meaning they they would have to get rid of abortion coverage in all their policies that they offer.
The claim from the backers of Stupak-Pitts that policy riders covering abortion would suffice doesn’t really change the fact that what Stupak-Pitts would do is make abortion coverage less available to women. Pro-choice House Democrats initially wanted to resolve the issue by requiring insurers to segragate their federal subsidies into separate accounts with insurance plans only being permitted to use non-federal dollars to pay for abortions, but that wasn’t quite good enough for pro-life Democrats.
We’ll see if the Senate and President Obama can somehow work out yet another compromise on abortion that has the support of a majority of Democrats, which seems doable given the stakes for the Democratic Party on health care reform.
starfleet_dude on November 10, 2009 at 3:58 PM
So this means that Obama is……lying?
stldave on November 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM
It’s the latter. More important, it’s symbolic, however. This type of fight over specific medical procedures is a taste of what a one-size-fits-all type plan that covers everything will be in the future.
I still say a simple major hospitalization plan was actually what people want. Just some protection against losing their insurance through job loss without having to face going to the county facilities for care.
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 4:01 PM
They were squawking plenty when Republicans were trying to get U.S. citizenship verifications and ID requirements put in the bill. The Hispanic Caucus threatened to vote against it if any of those type of requirements (excluding illegal aliens from coverage) were included. The House caved in to their demands, and the bill that passed the House contains no citizenship or ID requirements. That’s why you’re not hearing anything from the illegal alien “entitlement” lobby now — they got what they wanted.
If this POS bill passes in the Senate, U.S. taxpayers won’t just be paying for millions of illegal aliens’ ER visits as we do now; we’ll also be paying for all their other healthcare needs (e.g., IVF treatments, chiropractor visits, mental health counseling, etc.) as well.
It’s all about “social justice” and redistributing wealth from America’s middle class to everybody’s poor classes.
AZCoyote on November 10, 2009 at 4:01 PM
No, just that the status quo on abortion isn’t simply a matter of federal money being involved.
starfleet_dude on November 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM
The point of the Stupak Amendment was to remove the issue from the bill before it advanced to the Senate. With it in the passed House bill the issue of abortion funding can not be used as a bargaining chip in the Senate.
Stupak is a set back of the vision of abortion funding that liberals have in their heads. They’ve been gunning for money all along.
LeeSeneca on November 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Quiet, Ed; of course the amendment is devastating to abortion rights! It must be struck! Why, people might actually have to pay for these things out of their own pocket! How horrifying!
michaelo on November 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM
There has been so much sleight of hand, misdirection, subterfuge, and outright deception that I am completely baffled, and suspect that congress and the special interest groups have so obfuscated the bill that no one knows what’s in it. Or what it will do, or how it will be done.
It appears to me the only way to solve this Gordian knot problem is with the sword.
Skandia Recluse on November 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Say it ain’t so!
More seriously, it’s the second part of the argument that really gives the game away on the whole PelosiCare scam. The Hyde amendment has for many years blocked federal funding of abortions. This has been an irritant to groups such as NOW, but not a fatal one. Stupak’s amendment keeps the same rule in effect for Pelosi’s national plan. Still not a problem for NOW, as long as there is a private insurance market. But PelosiCare will eventually kill the private market, and stakeholders know it. Hence the hew and cry from NOW allies in Congress.
In other words, Pelosi and the Democrats don’t mind wiping out the private insurance market — unless abortion rights suffer because of it, and then heads will roll.
jwolf on November 10, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Ed, here’s what Polifact said was false: “An amendment to the House health reform bill “puts new restrictions on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money.”
It said nothing about whether the Stupak amendment changed the status quo. The amendment does change the status quo because it requires the exchanges to offer one plan with abortion coverage and another (otherwise identical) plan without abortion coverage. Private insurers are not now required to offer the same plan with and without abortion coverage.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Rep. Wasserman is from Florida. Has anyone from the St. Petersburg Times sent her its Politifact analysis?
BuckeyeSam on November 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
The thought of abortion seekers having to pay the Cadillac Tax (for coverage above and beyond what the “average” American can afford) is delicious.
unclesmrgol on November 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Here’s the part of the Stupak amendment that pretty clearly changes the current situation:
(c) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separat supplementa coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirele with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Help me out here, Jimbo3 – How does that language change the status quo concerning using government funds to pay for abortions?
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I don’t think this is right. As I understand it, the exchange will be selling both subsidized and non-subsidized policies. The subsidy issue comes in with respect to income level of the person buying the insurance. Unless you have qualified insurance through your employer you are going to have to buy insurance through the exchange. If you qualify for a subsidy, you’re purchase will be subsidized, if not, it won’t. The only thing Stupak does is say that any “public option” under the exchange cannot include abortion coverage (except for rape, incest, life of mother) and any policy purchased under the exchange with a government subsidy cannot include abortion coverage. If you pay for your own policy under the exchange, it can include abortion coverage. If your policy is subsidized, you would have to pay for a separate policy, or a separate rider, with you own money in order to have abortion coverage. Am I wrong?
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 4:45 PM
The language changes the status quo with respect to abortion coverage (not necessarily funding) because it requires insurers participating in the exchanges to offer two identical policies, one covering abortion and the other not covering abortion. There’s currently no requirement on employers to offer identical policies (apart from abortion coverage) to employees nor is there, as far as I know, any state insurance requirement to offer two identical policies (apart from abortion coverage) to people buying individual health insurance.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 4:47 PM
The Stupak amendment does allow for the subsidy of abortions in the case of rape, incest, or life-threatening physical condition.
Anyone else think we’ll see a rise in “rape”?
JohnJ on November 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM
jdp629, here’s what I understand is the full text of the Stupak amendment:
(a) IN GENERAL -
No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unleass an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using-
(a) individual premium payments required for an Exchange-participating health benefits pan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(b) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
(c) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separat supplementa coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirele with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM
–I think you’re right and Ed’s wrong. Because (c)(3) above clearly requires some Exchange health plans to include abortion. And because some people buying insurance on the Exchanges won’t be entitled to credits.
–It changes the status quo in regard to funding, as well. In about 15 states, Medicaid pays for most abortions. Medicaid is federally funded.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Jimbo I hear you, but the bill itself changes literally everything about health insurance in this country, including what can, and what must, be included in policies. I see what you’re saying, but IMhO, Stupak wasn’t concerned about whether insurance companies could, or would, or would be forced to, offer policies covering abortions. He was only concerned with the narrow issue of the use of government funds to pay for or subsidize abortions.
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM
There will simply be a “rape” checkbox on the form. And no one will pay any attention to it, other than to check that the box is completely filled in with dark ink, all government like.
pedestrian on November 10, 2009 at 5:05 PM
jdp629, I think the part below is also a change of the status quo. My understanding is that about 15 states use state or private funds to pay for most Medicaid abortions, but segregate those funds from the federal funds. The bolded part says that they can no longer do that.
b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using-
(a) individual premium payments required for an Exchange-participating health benefits pan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(b) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:09 PM
–Then why did (c) have to be included at all?
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Jimbo – I believe I’ve read that states are allowed to purchase their own insurance, with their own money (not subsidized by federal funds) to cover abortions for medicaid recipients. Since money is fungible, this might have problems, but at least (so far as I’ve read) the federal government medicaid payments do not ever pay for abortions (unless for rape, incest, life of mother).
BTW: This is one reason why I don’t expect a large increase in “rape” claims. It hasn’t happened in 30+ years under the Hyde Amendment, it’s doubtful to happen under Stupak.
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Jimbo, I would bet that the bolded section (b) is exactly what medicaid requires now.
As for section (c) – I think this was included to make sure that nobody could argue that a woman who used federal subsidy to purchase a policy on the exchange would be forbidden to buy a separate policy or rider with her own money for abortion coverage. Exactly the claim that pro-abortion folks are wrongly trying to use now.
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Political Paradox for President Barry:
If Obamacare, as Barack wants it, had been around when Obama’s mother got pregnant, Obama would probably not be here.
So, in effect, he supports his own potential non-existence, retroactively.
profitsbeard on November 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Bart Stupak is my congress critter. Has been for a long time. His very large district covers approx. the upper third of the Lower Peninsula and all of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Bart is pure liberal politician. This past summer he started with his town hall meetings in the LP. He caught such a rash of s**t at the first two that he held few, or none, in the UP. He went to electronic town hall meetings, which were next to impossible to get in on.
Bart knows his amendment is coming out in committee. He can then tell us that at least he tried, and got double-crossed by others.
He has done much the same kind of moves with the local mining and logging industries when they have come up against environmental issues (he’s very green, behind the curtain, for the votes, ya know). He has done this two-faced stand with many votes through the years, but whimps out under pressure. This is all SOP for Bart Stupac. I have never seen him take this strong of a stand before, and believe it’s nothing more than some of his smoke-and-mirrors crap. He could finally have a real fight on his hands for reelection next year.
If one wants to converse with Bart you have to give up nearly all your personal information, just to get an email accepted. Trying to get through to any of his three assistants spread across the district, and get real answers, is like a day in the dentist’s chair for a couple of root canals.
Bart lives in the west-central UP, very near the Wisconsin border. Bart did a large bit of arm-twisting to get the across-the-border-in-Wisconsin hospital to be rated at the same as “Chicago” levels for Medicare reimbursement.
‘…thanks to Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak, “any hospital co-located in Marinette, Wisconsin and Menominee, Michigan is deemed to be located in Chicago.” Only one hospital, Bay Area Medical Center in Green Bay, fits that description. Yet wage rates in Green Bay bear little resemblance to those in Chicago.’
But, Bart did help create-or-save employment in the UP during the last election. Very legal and all, paying his wife and son to work on his campaign:
Bart Stupak, D-Mich. Laurie Stupak Wife $125,236 **
** — Bart Stupak’s total rises to $132,036 with an additional $6,800 payment to his son, Kenneth Stupak.
Yoop on November 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM
–Then why the requirement to offer two almost identical policies?
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:30 PM
FYI, jdp629: This is from a recent letter of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities on the Capps amendment. It looks like the House bill goes beyond the status quo by prohibiting the use of segregated state funds:
The Hyde amendment prevents elective abortions frombeing supported by federal funds, or by “a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaidmatching funds” that mingle with federal funds in a benefits package. If a state chooses to fund abortions excluded by the Hyde policy, it must set up a separate account that is not part of the federal Medicaid program
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM
As I read this, what it says is that if a non-public option plan in the exchange offers a policy that includes abortion it must also offer an identical plan except for abortion coverage. Why is that needed? I would suppose in order to make sure that people who buy policies using government subsidies are not disadvantaged by having some policy options denied to them because they can’t use the money to buy a policy that includes abortion. Does that make sense?
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM
–I don’t know why it’s needed. Maybe someone smarter than me can figure it out. It just strikes me that it’s unlikely that companies in the exchanges will want the administrative headache of offering two almost-identical policies, and so will decide not to offer abortion coverage.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Jimbo – I’m not a medicaid expert (barely even a novice, really), so take this FWIW. As I read Stupak and what you just posted about medicaid I see this: In order to get government medicaid funds for their state, each state has to provide a certain amount of its own funding, sort “matching funds” (although I have no idea how the amounts are calculated). What the Hyde Amendment says is that any medicaid money that comes from the federal government cannot be used to fund abortions AND that the state cannot just use its own “matching funds” to fund abortions for medicaid people in that state. If the state wants to fund abortions for medicaid recipients, it has to set up a separate fund, with state money not devoted to medicaid funding, to do it. That’s exactly what I see the bolded portion of Stupak saying. States can’t use federal funds or non-federal funds required as “matching funds” to pay for abortions or for abortion insurance.
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 5:43 PM
jdp629, the way I read the letter from the Catholic bishops, it seems that only commingled state matching funds were prohibited by the Hyde amendment: “The Hyde amendment prevents elective abortions from being supported by federal funds, or by “a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds” that mingle with federal funds in a benefits package. If a state chooses to fund abortions excluded by the Hyde policy, it must set up a separate account that is not part of the federal Medicaid program.” Stupak goes further and says that you can’t even use non-commingled funds.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Anyways, jdp629, enjoyed discussing this with you. I’m not a Medicare/Medicaid/Hyde amendment expert either, but I like to read the language so I can try to understand things.
Jimbo3 on November 10, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Jimbo – Somebody smarter than me about medicaid and how Stupak differs (if at all) would have to help you with that. If there is a difference that is substantive, you can bet we’ll be hearing about it from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and, probably, our president. So far, as far as I know, they haven’t mentioned the issue you are drilling down on. We’ll see. Nice chatting with you.
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 5:57 PM
More info:
This Amendment could cause some employer health insurance plans to eliminate abortion coverage. The health care reform bill provides a $10 billion temporary reinsurance plan for employer-provided insurance plans that cover early retirees. Many large businesses, which employ tens of millions of Americans, would probably take advantage of the program. Since these large employer plans are getting some money from “this Act,” they could be required to stop providing coverage for abortions because of the Stupak amendment.
HR 3962 also provides money for “wellness program grants.” This money goes to small employers that offer wellness programs as part of their employer-provided insurance plan. Since these insurance plans would technically be getting funds from “this Act,” they might be forced to stop providing coverage for abortion.
Jimbo3 on November 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM