Comment of the day

sabutai raises a good point. (0.00 / 0)

Frank is wrong.

The candidate sabutai supports is irrelevant.

The cost issue is of less interest to abortion rights proponents then how to allow insurance plans on the exchange offer abortion insurance without violating the Hyde amendment.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 21:50:44 PM CST

yes, and... (5.80 / 5)

Sabutai is (I believe) a Capuano supporter, but it does seem to me that his point goes to both Coakley's and Capuano's positions, since both have now promised to vote "no" if something like Stupak is in the final bill.  

I agree. And I further think it a huge mistake on the part of any putative pro-choice coalition (in which I would ordinarily eagerly count myself) to paint this as catastrophic set-back for womens reproductive rights.  It is no such thing and it is counter-productive in the extreme to try to make it seem so.   I get the insult and the paternalism from Stupak. Ok. But the end of the world? Hardly.

And how much, I'm compelled to ask, will a saner health care funding system prevent unwanted pregnancies?  How many wanted pregnancies will be more successful and less problematic?  From where i sit, at worst, it's a wash in terms of either increasing or decreasing the number of abortions... unless, of course, somebody nukes the whole process and we end up stuck with the system we got now, which isn't sustainable in the least.

 

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 22:14:41 PM CST

A wash? (0.00 / 0)

And how much, I'm compelled to ask, will a saner health care funding system prevent unwanted pregnancies?  How many wanted pregnancies will be more successful and less problematic?  From where i sit, at worst, it's a wash in terms of either increasing or decreasing the number of abortions... unless, of course, somebody nukes the whole process and we end up stuck with the system we got now, which isn't sustainable in the least.

You raise a really great point, and it would be wonderful if the number of unwanted pregnancies is reduced as a result of this bill.  But, to wave your hands and call it "a wash" is lazy analysis.  Just saying that there are two forces in opposite directions and determine that their impacts are perfectly canceled defies sound reasoning.

---

by: stomv @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:32:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ok... (6.00 / 1)

But, to wave your hands and call it "a wash" is lazy analysis.  Just saying that there are two forces in opposite directions and determine that their impacts are perfectly canceled defies sound reasoning.

Perhaps so.  I will note that I said 'at worst', which means I don't think they would perfectly cancel, but that a net benefit would accrue to women.

I think it's pretty clear that a gain of access to health care, on the part of 36 million fellow citizens, would be a net gain in every aspect of health but particularly, IMHO, with respect to womens health.  Further, as Sabutai pointed out, this legislation would not impact nearly that many persons.... so I feel justified in a 'back of the envelope' calculation on this that posits a worst case scenario of parity but a probable much better outcome.

Or, put another way, why all the sound and fury??


---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:56:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A little unfair but I agree wholeheartedly (5.00 / 1)

I have basically been saying the same thing sabutai has been saying but have been getting far more flack for it with people calling me sexist and such. But again, the actual number of women that would be significantly affected by Stupak is much smaller than the number of women, and Americans in general, that would be gravely affected, one would even say afflicted, if they were still denied access to basic healthcare coverage. This bill is not perfect, I speak for most of us when I say I wish single payer had been on the table, I wish Wyden-Bennet was given more consideration, hell I wish Max Baucus wasn't in the Senate. But in real life you don't always get what you wish for, better to insure 36 million Americans even at the cost of funding some abortions, than to not insure them at all. That is the debate. And thus far Coakely has come out on the wrong side of this important issue.  

---

by: jconway @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:12:37 AM CST

More numbiz (5.50 / 2)

Same study estimates 1.3 million abortions yearly in the US.  That means that on the order of 160,000 covered by private insurance.  Some women have had more than one abortion, but for argument's sake let's say 150,000 patients would be affected directly by Stupak.  Considering that these women have private insurance, and given the state of the current system, that means they likely have a job where saving $400 is difficult, but not insurmountable.  

While I doubt that chance that Congress will create a $60 million "abortion fund", I imagine there are ways to assemble programs that could step into this breach.  

Regardless, I think ensuring that 36 million people receive coverage has a greater impact than 150,000 people having to pay a notable but not impossible sum for a medical procedure.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:23:05 AM CST

Cost seems off (5.00 / 1)

I recently took my dad in for a CT scan and the cost was $3,500. (He had insurance, but we were curious what the true cost was.)

I have a hard time believing an abortion procedure is just $400. No medical procedure is that cheap. That sounds more like a co-pay.

This isn't a comment on the underlying issue itself, just some skepticism as to the figures.  

---

by: rupert115 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:39:19 AM CST

the reason it's so cheap... (5.50 / 2)

is that, precisely because so many people pay out of pocket and do not rely on insurance for the service, providers have an incentive to compete on price and seek efficiencies to lower the cost.  If people paid out of pocket for CT scans, you can bet the price would be much lower and, more importantly and unlike the current healthcare market, would decline over time.

---

by: Ed Poon @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:18:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This almost sounds like... (0.00 / 0)

...the real answer to health care reform is to ban entirely the business of health insurance, then the cost of everything would plummet and accessibility and affordability would take care of itself.  Am I reading this correctly?

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:07:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Missing half the facts (6.00 / 3)

The people you're quoting, kindly ask you to stop quoting them inaccurately...

The best available evidence-from two studies conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation-suggests that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion. Further, as outlined above, direct billing does not equate to either extent of coverage or even use of coverage. Guttmacher's 13% statistic, therefore, should not be cited as evidence that insurance coverage for abortion is not widespread or to suggest that restricting such coverage would have an impact on only a small minority of women.

As to it's just $400 bucks...  

More than 7 million women of reproductive age are enrolled in Medicaid, and the average salary for a family of three is $930 a month, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That leaves little extra for anything other than basic necessities like rent, utilities, food, child care, and transportation. Finding the money to cover an unplanned expense like an abortion can be an insurmountable task.

...studies conclude that between 18 and 35 percent of women on Medicaid who would have had abortions if government funding were available -- at least 64,000 women a year, according to a conservative estimate -- instead carried their pregnancies to term. The 64,000 figure does not account for women who live in states that do cover abortion but who do not qualify for Medicaid or cannot afford related expenses like transportation and child care.

Removing Stupak doesn't solve this problem, but letting in stay makes solving it harder.

---

by: dhammer @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:42:37 AM CST

Why the 13%, again? (0.00 / 0)

Typical insurance company stinginess?

---

by: Farnkoff @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:07:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

a few reasons (6.00 / 3)

There are a lot of employer-sponsored health plans that specifically exclude abortion, so even people who have pretty decent coverage may not have it for this one thing.  Another thing to consider is the number of women who DO have insurance that would cover an elective termination but choose to self-pay for privacy/safety issues.  (If you're in college, you might not want your abortion showing up on your parents' billing statement.  If you're in an abusive relationship and don't want to bring a kid into the middle of it, but you're covered by your husband's/boyfriend's plan, he's gonna see the line item.) It's distressing to me, the number of people suddenly taking up the banner of "abortion must be covered at all costs" who don't actually know what the status quo is and has been for decades.  (Not aiming that last part at you!  Just a general gripe.)

---

by: melora @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:02:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the answer. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Farnkoff @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:18:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well... no... (0.00 / 0)

The people you're quoting, kindly ask you to stop quoting them inaccurately...

eh...

Keep in mind that Sabutai was making a comment in another context: which comment was then posted here as a 'comment of the day'. If I might be allowed to recontextualize (always a danger...) the numbers in question aren't as important as the differing responses to what is essentially the same situation: if, as you and the Guttmacher Inst contend, women are being driven 'off billing' with respect to abortion (for whatever reason...), where's the outrage?  Why does the Stupak bill get all the sound and fury when, essentially, it's already happening under the present system?  

Sabutais point, I take it, was that affecting billing was minimized already and why would Stupak change that all that much?  And, furthmore, why hold up the whole train because of Stupak?

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:35:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

pro Coakley anti Capuano front page bias yesterday (0.00 / 0)

We had a full day of front page posts by David and Bob about what a HUGE mistake Capuano made in race for US Senate with regard to the debate between Cap and Coak on the Stupak Amendment, their votes, what their pragmatism or ideology means for their candidacy, and how that played into the horse race aspect of this primary.   As we have continued to learn more about what happened - who said what when why -  I think it is only fair that posts correcting the record find their way to the front page today.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:54:30 AM CST

come on (0.00 / 0)

The initial posts were, if anything, anti-Coakley.  It was only when Capuano completely reversed himself that people began characterizing it as a huge mistake.  If he stuck with his initial position, as Pags is doing right now, I venture to say the editors would be more supportive of Capuano than Coakley.

---

by: Ed Poon @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:21:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"I think it is only fair" (0.00 / 0)

Didn't you hear?  The fairness doctrine has been repealed.  ;-)

---

by: David @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:08:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Martha blames other for her statement about voting no on HR3962 (0.00 / 0)

I just want to hear from you and Bob today (after a full day of Capuano critical judgment yesterday) and everyone else who wants to comment on a frontpage reassessments based on a more comprehensive set of facts.  

For example:

Isn't the story here that Martha blames other for her statement about voting no on HR3962 in the house because no one told her the situation?

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:16:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Coakley (on her statement about voting NO in house vote HR3962) (0.00 / 0)

I have said, then let somebody explain that that was the strategy. Let someone say, well, we knew we had this problem but this was the only way to move forward on it.

Q: And that someone who should have known what they were talking about is...who?

A: Martha.


www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:20:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Two kinds of voters (6.00 / 2)

The implication of sab's post, at least the fragment of it here, is to weigh an apparently modest loss against a significant gain by comparing their costs and benefits. This is hardly a remarkable thing to do, and certainly useful.

Totally lost in these kinds of analyses, however, are such non-economic ideas and justice and civil rights. Choice is a health issue, of course, but it is also about women controlling their bodies.

Suppose the quid pro quo were not limits on insurance coverage, but a modest poll tax on naturalized citizens wishing to vote. You might say, heck, it's unfair, but what's five bucks against health care for all? Or you might say that justice is neither negotiable nor subordinate to cost-benefit analyses.

I suspect there are two kinds of voters, those for whom choice is a civil right and those for whom it is something else. I expect that this whole episode plays out very differently for each group. (Ironically so, since Coakley and Capuano's positions are, at the end of the news cycle, functionally identical.)

---

by: Trickle up @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:28:52 AM CST

Quite possibly (6.00 / 2)

Although there used to be talk that the lack of healthcare (which we're told is a right) is an issue of fundamental justice and dignity as well.  I think the case can be made that both issues bring this in...we're trying to defend freedom on abortion, while expand it on health care.  IF we can't do both, which do you choose?

Oh, and if the same people who voted for and enforced the anti-freedom "Patriot Act" turn around who stand against the Stupak Amendment, that would be...curious.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 09:31:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Health Care (0.00 / 0)

There are two large groups opposed to the new law. Fiscal conservatives and anti-abortionists. Between them, they could scuttle the new law. Why not pass the law with the anti-abortion language in it, then, after it is signed into law, go back and reverse the anti-abortion language. At that point, Joe Lieberman and the Maine senators, for example, would not use their "fiscal conservatism" to block the attempt to remove the anti-abortion language. Pass the bill in two stages so it gets passed.

support the immigrants.

---

by: mikberg @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 18:55:39 PM CST

Wondered that myself (0.00 / 0)

You can get pro-choice health care and public-option health care through Congress...just not in the same bill.  This is the type of situation that calls for a smoke-filled room.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:19:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

More data which suggests ... (0.00 / 0)

... the percentage of women currently with insurance that pays for abortion services is much higher than 13% ... clarification from Guttmacher Institute

---

by: Pbrane @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:21:20 AM CST

let's clarify your clarification (0.00 / 0)

The percentage of women who are currently covered by insurance that would pay for an elective termination is NOT the same as the percentage of women who, when they DO have an abortion, actually USE that private insurance.  If you're going to talk about potential changes to policy and their effect on the status quo, it's the latter number that makes a difference.

---

by: melora @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:54:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]