Skip to main content

View Diary: Insurance Industry Expert Says Stupak Would Practically Mean No Abortion Coverage (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  75--90% of private plans cover it (7+ / 0-)

    And so does medicaid in civilized states.  If you don't think S-P represents a big change, you need to realize that a lot of people have jobs.

    "Dream for just a second and then do it!" -- Kolmogorov

    by theran on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:22:55 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And most of them won't (0+ / 0-)

      get their insurance through the exchange.

      I'm not sure I buy the argument that it'll be so much trouble to sell this product that people want that no insurance companies will bother. That making it difficult on the exchange will lead to insurance plans not even sold on the exchange dropping abortion coverage because it'll be too much paperwork.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:36:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You assume that policies offered to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        terabytes

        employers will not change. If the employee share has to be subsidized by the federal credits, they are also in the soup. And if the employers find that no abortion coverage is cheaper, they will be out to there as fast as many of them can go. As it is, many shop and change year to year now, depending on what the cheapest policy they can get is. Their only dog in this fight is the cost of providing coverage to employees they would lose without it, and they have no legal obligation under this to keep buying policies with abortion coverage. The fantasy here that people want to keep their existing coverage contains the assumption that the employer cannot and will not unilaterally change policies, as is their legal right. What do you here think will happen with that now.

        •  Yes I do. Or rather I assume (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gravis

          they will continue getting worse and more expensive as they have for years.

          I'm not sure what you mean by "If the employee share has to be subsidized by the federal credits", as that isn't even being discussed. Unless you're referring to some small businesses which may be able to buy into the exchange. I'm not sure what the status of that is.

          If policies without abortion coverage are significantly  cheaper, why haven't companies dropped it long ago? They are as free to do so now in most states, as they will be if this passes.

          I simply don't see how this provision leads to everyone losing even the option to buy abortion coverage. Insurance companies offer many different plans with many different levels of coverage. The idea that the cost of having one with abortion will be prohibitive makes no sense to me.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:03:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree..it doesn't make any sense (0+ / 0-)

            because it's grossly exaggerated. Insurance companies will continue to offer many diverse plans.

            •  It's always cheaper to offer a few standardized (0+ / 0-)

              plans. Have you seen the posts here where women in states where this is an issue point out that the supposed supplementals aren't offered there because the insurance companies have concluded there is an insufficient market? I have been asking since this row started whether anyone knew of a supplemental policy to fill a hole in any existing one which any company has in fact issued, to try to gauge the actual taste out there for insurance companies to offer the supplemental, and have gotten a big goose egg. And the front page diary of what I remember as yesterday about precisely why insurance companies would not offer both abortion included and abortion excluded policies.

              Look at the language of the proposals and see what the consequence is, discussed or not, of an employee using the Federal credits to pay an employee's share of some company plan. Are you certain it is not covered. Or won't be as soon as someone mentions that it is all respects analogous to the regulation of other private plans on the exchange.

      •  Here's the thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thejeff

        The Exchange is national.  So lets say that every insurer decides it isn't worth it to offer abortions coverage and the entire Exchange is devoid of abortion coverage and riders.  Isn't that an amazingly huge opportunity for some company somewhere in the country to put even one plan covering abortions onto the Exchange?  If coverage of a $300 procedure is important enough to get progressives to willingly sink HCR, then that company would be recession proof with the dollars flooding in.

        So I find it hard to believe that the worst case scenario would in fact occur.

        •  No here's the thing (0+ / 0-)

          Insurance companies know it's cheaper to pay for an abortion than to pay for an infant added to the policy and much cheaper than an infant with problems.

          Abortion riders would be cheap since abortions themselves don't cost more than a few thousand dollars and aren't exactly the most common medical procedures women need either. Stop making assumptions that riders wouldn't be offered because there is no way of knowing that.

          •  I'm in agreement -- (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gravis

            I was pointing out that even if the cataclysmic event of no coverage were to occur (which I am very skeptical would be the case) then that would create a market perfect for at least one health insurance company to move in and seize a national market.

            But yes I agree with you that riders make a ton of sense and I would think they would be priced between $15-$30 per year as that would pay for the basic first-trimester procedure assuming no negotiated discount and 50% inflation for overhead.

            Further I find the "proof" that an abortion rider wouldn't exist based on the experiences of five states to be highly dubious.  Those five states make up less than 16-million people (8m women, maybe 4m of the right age for abortion to be an issue).  However, you cannot create one rider to service all 4m people, instead you need 5 different riders to match each state's insurance regulations.  Now considering that each of these states are disposed towards pro-life policies you can see how quickly the best possible market of 4m customers shrinks to a very small market (in ND that market may be under 100,000 possible customers).  Now with a national exchange you have one set of regulations and one rider can instantly be purchased by 150m women (approximately 75m of whom may be of the right age to consider an abortion rider).  That is a huge fucking market -- and I cannot envision at least one company wanting to capture that market -- hell just being able to capture the California market would be a boon for that company, much less a national market 7 times bigger).

            So yes, there will be riders available.  The intellectual exercise required to get to a point where they wouldn't exist is bereft with false data and bad assumptions.

    •  To what extent? (0+ / 0-)

      You still have a high co-pay, then co-insurance, and a deductible unless you're rich and have a cadillac plan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site