Privileging opposition to abortion
Most people waiting anxiously for real health care reform probably haven't thought much about whether insurance covers abortion. They're too busy thinking about how great it would be to have insurance in the first place, or to not have to worry about losing it if they change jobs, or if their premiums stopped skyrocketing.
But some reporters seem to think the most important aspect of health care reform is whether or not insurance plans cover abortions. And dealing with that question, they have skewed their reports in favor of those who oppose such coverage. (It should be noted that anti-choice activists not only want to prevent a public insurance plan from covering abortion, they want to prevent private plans from doing so as well.)
MSNBC's Chris Matthews is illustrative of the approach to the topic some have taken. Matthews, who acknowledges his approach to this topic has been shaped by the conservative Weekly Standard, has made his opposition to coverage for abortion clear, claiming President Obama "says they're going to reduce the number of abortions, and that same week he pushes to subsidize abortion? You can't do that."
On a recent Hardball, Matthews questioned Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch about the topic, asking leading questions that encouraged them to state their opposition to insurance coverage of abortion. But Matthews didn't ask them -- and hasn't asked any other guest -- one simple question: Why shouldn't abortions be covered, given that the procedure is legal? Nor has he asked if there are any other legal procedures that shouldn't be covered.
Instead, Matthews has adopted the premise that taxpayer funds shouldn't be used to pay for abortions, no matter how indirectly, because some taxpayers believe abortion to be immoral. On Wednesday's Hardball, for example, Matthews asked Obama adviser David Axelrod: "[I]f the federal government spends money on abortions, that means people who believe abortion is evil would be forced to have their tax money go to pay for abortions. How do you justify that?"
That premise is only superficially compelling, and has no business underlying an impartial news report. After all, millions of Americans believe the death penalty and wars of choice are immoral. But the moral beliefs of pacifists and death penalty opponents are not granted the privilege the media grants opposition to legal abortion -- and so you rarely see a news report premised on the idea that taxpayer funding for war or capital punishment is inappropriate.
But one needn't look further than health care to find such examples. The premise that taxpayers who oppose abortion shouldn't have to pay for them with their tax money carries obvious implications the media ignores: What about contraceptives? Why should a woman denied insurance payment for an abortion be forced to subsidize the prostate exam of a man who insisted he not have to fund her abortion? Why should Christian Scientists who believe only in healing by prayer be forced to subsidize their neighbor's heart surgery?
The idea that taxpayers shouldn't pay for insurance that covers medical services they don't support is fundamentally incompatible with the very concept of insurance. If every interest group wields veto power over the medical care insurance can cover, insurance simply can't work. If there is a reason to grant such veto power only to those who would use it to prevent insurance coverage of abortions, reporters like Matthews haven't explained it. (And, no, public opinion does not present such a reason, as recent polling showing strong public support for women's reproductive health coverage makes clear.)
That isn't the only logical inconsistency on the part of abortion foes that the media fail to examine in their coverage of this controversy. Many of those who are most adamant that the government not allow abortions to be paid for by health insurance plans are the same conservatives who argue against health care reform by warning of the prospect of a government bureaucrat getting between you and your doctor.
You read that right: The same people who want a government ban on insurance coverage for a legal medical procedure turn around and demagogue about government bureaucrats making medical decisions. That's a pretty obvious inconsistency, the kind any reporter should be able to spot easily. And yet the tension between those two positions has gone unexplored in news reports about the abortion controversy. Matthews certainly didn't ask Orrin Hatch to reconcile the two; he was busy assuring Hatch "I think your side may win this."
Nobody who is familiar with the Bob Casey myth should be surprised at reporters unthinkingly adopting an anti-choice frame for their news reports. For nearly two decades, political reporters have claimed that the Democrats refused to allow Casey to speak at their 1992 convention because he opposed abortion rights, and that the party needed to be more hospitable to those who share his views.
That the story of Casey and the 1992 convention is completely fabricated is actually beside the point. Pretend for a moment (like reporters do) that it's true. Now: When was the last time you saw a news report about the fact that the Republicans have never allowed anyone to give a speech in favor of abortion rights at their convention?
Exactly.
Opponents of abortion rights certainly deserve to have their views represented in the media. But reporters shouldn't adopt those views as their own.
Free doesn't necessarily mean overuse, it is only overused if the doctors allow it. I think it means that people who normally would wait until they are more hurt or sick need not to.
MOST insurance comprehensively covers family planning and womens' reproductive health and Medicaid does in many states, as well.
Vasectomies are covered by insurance and so is contraception. Both of these are "elective" by your definition, as well. moreover suggesting that doctors don't offer input for family planning services is totally wrong. Pregnancies have a myriad of complications and how they affect each woman is unique. Foregoing a pregnancy is and should ALWAYS be an option covered under ANY insurance plan.
Yes that's where the monkey is hiding. Those instances where it is necessary are what break your arguement. If a blanket provision is included to not pay for any abortions at all, what happens in those cases? Are women supposed to go to a clinic where they can pay for their abortion themselves then return to the hospital for treatment of their serious condition?
All surgery or medical procedures are elective in as much as a person may or may not choose to have them.
Elective is a term used to describe procedures that do not affect ones health.
I assure you that a pregnancy has dramatic effects a woman's health and is far more dangerous for her than an abortion is.
Except when the patient is incoherent or unable to respond. And terming pregnancy as a health complication adds way more heat than illumination to the argument.
Abortion is legal. So's reattachment of a severed limb, or removal of a mole that's changed in shape or color. That's all insurers need know.
For the people who argue on "moral" grounds that they don't want their taxes going to fund abortions, I say, "tough." I don't want my taxes paying for the occupation of Iraq, or Cheney's security detail, post office, but it's not like I have the option of redlining my 1040...
The health bill is bad because it creates a middleman to compete
with the existing middleman (insurance companies). That doesn't reduce costs. Eliminating the middleman would greatly reduce costs.
Health costs should be divided into two types:
1. Planned costs - checkups, normal pregnancy, vaccinations, any voluntary expected health need.
2. Catastrophic costs - Cancer, arthritis, heart disease and many unplanned issues.
People should pay for planned cost out of pocket. All health costs should be deductible from our tax bill directly. For those who cannot pay, our government should fund free clinics. That would get health care to those who claim to not have access much more quickly than anything in the House bill. It would also cover more people.
For catastrophic insurance, people should still have to pay. However, for those who are too poor to pay, the government would have a catastrophic insurance fund for those people. It would be a pot of money that could shrink and grow depending on the state of the economy where more or less people are too poor to pay. Any Health care bill should strictly ban forever any form of pay as you go funding for this program.
In both cases (planned and catastrophic) health savings accounts should be both untaxed and strong encouraged. When people must experience that actual amount of money each medical visit costs, they will become much more attentive to overcharges.
There are also some rules that need to change for the insurance business. Insurance needs to cross state boundaries. There should be a requirement that all people must be covered or the industry as a whole would pay a surtax. [In other words no one could be refused.] Monitoring this would cheap and trivial.
Going much further than this would mean that the government is deciding who gets what coverage. I think having politics involved in who gets what coverage is about as evil a suggestion as any I can imagine for America.
Abortion is not as elective as liposuction! Being pregnant is a huge medical undertaking. I would much wreather pay for a one time abortion then 9 months of doctor visits for the mother then after she has the kid and then 18 years of medical for the kid. When the mother didn't even want to do it in the first place.
YES, somthing has to be done about insurance. Lucky You! to all the people who work for places that have a good insurance. The idea of low income people is awful. You have to be below low income to get help. If people have to pay for planned costs out of pocket then prices are going to have to FALL a lot!!! Have you had to pay for any thing medical lately? I will bet not!!!
Give me one example of where 'cottage cheese' thighs ever killed anyone, just one. Lipo is not a potentially life-saving procedure and to compare it to abortion is insulting and shows your ignorance of womens health issues.
Pregnancy is a medical condition whether you agree with that or not, it is a scientific FACT. There are many girls and women who are maimed and/or die due to complications of pregnancy and delivery. And I won't even go into the psychological damage a woman suffers with an unwanted pregnancy if she is forced to term. This is why any medical plan must carry comprehensive reproductive health care, including the option of abortion for all females.
You go on to say; "the patient voluntarily made decisions that created the need for the procedure."
So, you're saying that due to irresponsibility the woman is in this medical condition and therefore should assume 100% of the costs..right? Well, we could say that about any man who has multiple partners and gets a venereal disease or anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet and has a crash or for that matter ANY action that was voluntary and resulted in a medical issue. Punishment pregnancies (that's what it amounts to) are discriminatory and truly morally repugnant. A womans health is first and yes, foremost in priorities.
About 18 months ago, I slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk and jammed my left shoulder. Took a couple of months of therapy with no results. After discussing options with the Dr, surgery vs. cortisone shot, evaluating costs, after effects, etc, decided on the shot. Still have rare times when I have a problem with the shoulder, but I can live with it. If I were 20-30 years younger, the decision may have been different, but it was my decision, based on possible outcomes and costs. Each of us should be involved in that way, instead of as now, if we are uninsured, going to the ER and dropping that cost on everybody but ourselves.
I'm just a little skeptical that in a 1000+ page bill that there aren't some hidden "bombs" that will over time become very costly to the taxpayer/citizen of this country.
Except that private insurance, with their profit motive to deny procedures, has a 30%-35% overhead, where government insurance (Medicare) runs on 3%. So a "public option" reduces costs immediately in the neighborhood of 30% or more.
Have you considered obvious fallacy in your ridiculous arguments. Abortion is LEGAL, therefore, continuing a pregnancy is as "elective" as aborting it.
Also, don't try and couch your moral stance as a matter of prudence and fiscal responsibility, either A $500-$2,000 abortion procedure is much more taxpayer-friendly than the cost of covering a pregnancy from start to finish, not to mention covering the resulting child after it is born.
How do you determine that they are unplanned? By your own definition of "pregnancy" as the choice to have se_x, then Cancer or Heat Disease could be determined by the Choice to eat ice cream or the choice to work at a place that has asbestos that caused cancer. Or the Prostate cancer guy who is maybe having too much se_x that he got cancer?
and Who, Mr. Almighty-Gets-To-Judge-All-Health-Issues - makes these tricky decisions? You guys are hypocrites - who want to Control Women's Health Decisions and sit in Judgement on Women (but not men) who are having se_x. But no punishment (unplanned pregnancy) for men who are having se_x at the same time.
So will All of You now Boycott All of the Private Insurers out there because 95% of them offer coverage for abortions. I dare You All to drop your Private Insurer NOW. Yeah sure - like THAT Will Ever Happen. Like I said - Hypocrites.
Isn't one of the basic tenets of economics that competition reduces cost? One can argue that the current proposed public option can't effectively compete, but not that competition doesn't lower prices.
I don't understand what positive effect you expect this to have. You seem to think that healthcare is a normal industry that follows normal micro-economic rules. This is not the case, because the demand curve is skewed by the fact that the utility of survival is nearly infinite.
Additionally, there's an extreme information imbalance. I'm not going to have an easy time figuring out if a test or procedure is necessary, or what an appropriate charge should be, and Joe Six-pack's going to have an even harder time. And let's say you get a second opinion (and we remove doctor-collaboration as an issue), and you've got one doctor who says "You might die if we don't do this" and another who says "You're fine". You gonna take the risk and not do the procedure? Gonna get a third opinion?
There's a reason insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions. They're all but a guaranteed loss for the insurance company. Your proposal will either drive the insurers out of business or force them to drastically raise rates on everyone.
No it wouldn't. To enforce a "everyone must be covered" rule, you have literally do all the underwriting and actuarial work relevant to the case and determine what a fair rate is. Is the company offering a reasonable rate based on the model and it's the client whose unwilling to pay, or is the insurance company only offering an inflated price in order to drive out a risky policyholder? Also, you've got to sort out what the fine needs to be to create the proper incentive.
The health bill is bad because it creates a middleman to compete
with the existing middleman (insurance companies). That doesn't reduce costs. Eliminating the middleman would greatly reduce costs.
lots of folks on Medicare get it cause they want it, and it is indicated. but lots of folks choose other alternatives, when it is indicated.
It doesn't matter whether or not it bankrupts someone on its own. The problem is that low-income people can't afford a $150 office call on a $300/week salary, so they put it off as long as possible, and their situation worsens and ultimately requires more expensive care to fix (which does bankrupt them).
It's better for the government (or insurance) to eat ten or so $150 "I wasn't sure if it was serious" office calls than one $3000+ "advanced-stage illness treatment requiring hospitalization after the guy didn't go to his doctor until he was so ill he had to go the emergency room, and then went bankrupt trying to pay the bill, so the hospital got stiffed and the guy's life got trashed".
Here's the issue. Matthews, in this role, is not a reporter. He is a commentator. Commentators express their views, however much we don't like it.
It's when they lie (overtly, covertly, through implication, whatever) that the real problem starts. Or perhaps better said, 'has started'.
Please explain how health insurance can be overused or involve fraud.
Where's the person on TV talking about what individuals dislike, yet pay for? It'd be a waste of time and effort, basically because you can't please all of the people, all of the time. I don't like situations surrounding abortions either, but opposition to the the public insurance option because you may not agree to all of what it covers, is just a joke, a made-up excuse for opposition.
I'm a taxpayer, and I believe the war in Iraq is evil. So how does Mr. Matthews justify spending my tax money on that?
Since health insurance is regulated by states, this has led to some strange laws where abortions may be legal in a state but state laws prohibit insurance from paying for some or all forms of abortion either for all residents or just public employees.
Are there any other lawful medical procedures that are prohibited by laws drawn up by insurance regulators?
BTW, Monkey Boy's last point is well taken. The insurance industry has extraordinary and disproportionate influence on our laws, especially at the state level.
Shut-up, Tweety.
i am really disappointed by all this, the notion that the taxpayers have differing views on anything should justify action or inaction is foolish.
for example, many taxpayers believe that marijuana is harmless and good (never mind those who think the same of more serious drugs). would this be enough reason to allow drug use? i hope not.
this is an issue that we will not see a consensus on for some time, there are too many people throwing their opinion in without thoroughly thinking it through. this is one of the practices that break down dialogue and polarize people.
Not that I expect consistency from the anti-choice crowd. They want the government to step in and exclude abortion from *private* health plans -- while simultaneously insisting the government should keep out of health coverage altogether.