Posted on 08/08/2017 7:18:44 PM PDT by thecodont
Texas is closer than ever to joining 10 other states that bar private insurance plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act from covering abortions, except through supplemental plans.
The Texas House -- over strong objections from Democrats -- gave preliminary approval to House Bill 214, which prohibits health plans from providing coverage for abortion except in the cases where the life of the mother is in danger. The House voted 95-51 to send the bill to a third and final reading.
"This isn't about who can get an abortion," state Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, said of his bill. "It is about who is forced to pay for an abortion."
But Democrats vehemently objected, saying Smithee's plan essentially targets women by forcing them to pay for extra insurance that men would be able to avoid buying.
"This bill takes us backwards," said Rep. Ina Minjarez, D-San Antonio. "This bill is about denying Texas women their right to a safe abortion."
Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie, was even more blunt, saying HB 214 was essentially forcing women to buy "rape insurance" because Smithee's bill did not provide even an exception for rape or incest victims.
Turner tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to allow insurance to still cover abortions for women and girls who are raped or victims of incest.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 25 states ban abortion coverage under health plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, but at least 13 of those have exceptions for rape and incest victims. Of the 10 states that ban private insurance coverage of abortions, 2 have exceptions for rape and incest.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Ping.
Ping!
Ping.
Banning “government” insurance for abortion is O.K. It says - while abortion might be legal, like gambling, smoking and other controversial things it should not have direct government support.
But banning private insurers from offering benefits that can cover an abortion is, in my legal view, contrary to the whole idea of private insurance and private contracts. If by some quirk of politics abortion became totally banned, by law, then it would pass muster to by law ban insurance for it. That is not where we are, and I think, in the end, the ban won’t fly.
Banning MANDATORY purchase of abortion coverage by those who will never get this elective procedure.
The only thing that I think would pass muster is banning any private or other mandate that a policy MUST have abortion coverage in it. I think trying to legislate that it can only be a “supplemental” coverage, even if an insurer and their client want it in the general policy, is wrong.
As long as abortion is legal and not entirely illegal, I don’t get how you legislate individuals and insurers cannot have it in a general policy of they chose. That is beyond just saying there can be no mandate that it MUST be in the general policy.
Why not force men to subsidize women's dry-cleaning as well?
Or why not pressure those liberal men who want their babies to be aborted to pony up the cash for the procedure?
The Rats are on record (in this article) opposing any attempts to avoid paying into abortion funds. It is mandatory for ALL covered by insurance.
Consent of the governed is an unpopular concept to the Left.
The Democrats didn’t run with “....hardest hit....”? - boy, they are slackin’ these days.
But offering insurance coverage for abortion is contrary to the whole idea of healthcare as, er, “health” “care.”
This statement is a perfect example of the days Our Lord referred to those calling good - bad and bad - good.
Tony the Tiger says Guuurreat!
Morally, no argument, and no argument from me. But, for now, the law, all the way up to the supremes says otherwise. It is on that basis that I think the Texas act could eventually be held unconstitutional at SCOTUS. That is why I counseled that the extent of the Texas law at this point in time, should only deal with disallowing any mandate that abortion must be part of a policy. That would lead to a SCOTUS test they might win, against the Obamacare ruling that says abortion must be included in health insurance policies. That would leave it where the law would pass Constitutional muster for now - not mandated, but private individuals and insurers could include if they chose to. Its not a perfect world.
How about banning ALL non-therapeutic, death-dealing or mutilative surgery from insurance coverage. This would include abortion, euthanasia, doctor-assisted killing of all kinds, sex-change operations for patients who have healthy, functional, normal sex organs, gals (and guys!!) who want 34EE breasts, weirdos who want to have their noses reconfigured and ears cut off so they resemble parrots, etc. Not health. Not care. And also, not the business of insurance, which is supposed to "insure" against being unprovided-for in the case of medical need. Insurance is NOT to serve as collective funding for mischief and mutilation.
It’s a tax, right? does that apply?
I agree with your point of what insurance is and is not intended to be used for - the unexpected, not the definite. It is a fine funding mechanism for the unexpected and a lousy one for the definite. It is cheaper and more efficient to pay for the definite, somehow, than pretending there is anything NOT definite about the risk the insurer is taking. Unfortunately our society has been 100% mis-educated on that score, mostly from the political dialogue on health insurance legislation going back to medicare, and even getting further from reality as things moved toward Obamacare.
I read recently of a Christian group that has, as a group, quit using “health insurance”. They do collect monthly dues from the group. The dues money just goes to directly paying for the medical expenses of the members. It is also the case that when recent expenses have been higher the dues are raised. From the stand point of “paying” it is paying more like would be from a “health savings account”, with no special deals with health care providers, just whatever is the best price the individual can get, for “cash”. It’s more like a direct cost sharing than an insurance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.