Regarding the abortion caveat of the health care bill

[Duer 157099]

or the signing statement or whatever.

If, eventually, health care reform went really far down the path that we really want, and ended up at single payer, ... how would that impact abortion? I mean, if the gov't were truly providing health care to everyone, then wouldn't it be impossible to get an abortion?

I realize it's a far-fetched scenario, but how would it play out?

[frazzled]

1. Don't confuse being able to get an abortion with having it paid for

This bill did nothing to impede women's ability to have an abortion. It just won't use government money to pay for it--which is exactly the status quo we have now.

Fortunately, abortions aren't that expensive (compared to heart surgery or cancer treatment, at least).

[Lars39]

3. Some abortions are very expensive, particularly those for the woman's health,

which the Hyde Amendment does not take into account, btw.

[Duer 157099]

5. I'm talking more about a paradigm shift

If all health care were being provided by the government, let's say, and if the Hyde amendment were kept as is, then pretty much de facto it would severely limit the availability of abortion.

I could see a restriction going into place where all medical facilities that receive federal funding could not perform abortions -- after all, that's practically the logical next step given that the groundwork is already there. So, effectively you would have a severe limitation on the number of physicians/facilities that provide the procedure.

Think of how the federal ban on funding stem cell research went. While it didn't completely eliminate stem cell research in this country, the fact is that the majority of research is conducted with federal funding, and so, even though stem cell research itself was legal, in practice, it was grossly limited because of where the bulk of funding came from.

I think there's a parallel that we should be paying attention to.

[frazzled]

7. I agree with you ... but

I feel in the greater context of health insurance reform (where this shouldn't even have been an issue at all), I'm willing to let the issue stay at the status quo for now. But I'll be out there in force if I see any hint of erosion of the right to choose.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. If we have the votes and support to pass single payer...

the Hyde ammendment will be sleeping with the fishes.

We would have the votes to pass anything we want.

[Jakes Progress]

4. Hey man. It only affects women.

It's not like they won't pay for Viagra.

[johnaries]

6. Pretty much the same as it is now. Remember, there are exceptions

for rape, incest, and endangering the health of the mother. These have been pretty much "set in stone" by previous SCOTUS rulings. Of course, the RW wants to change these rulings - but that's another debate.

So, outside of these exceptions an abortion would probably be considered "elective" procedures. I'm not really up on the various kinds of private plans that are available today, but I don't think that most of them will pay for "elective" procedures. If you want a nose job or a boob job, AFAIK those will come out of your pocket. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never looked into either. I'm guessing an "elective" abortion is treated the same way by most insurance companies today. Unless, of course, you have a "Cadillac Plan". Again, I'm just guessing since I've never researched these procedures.

If we had a single-payer system, I personally would not want "elective" procedures payed for with my tax dollars. For one thing, that would overload the system with "unnecessary" procedures.

Therefore, I would extrapolate that if your doctor referred you to get an abortion because of rape, incest, or because it endangered your health in some tangible way, then you would be covered. Otherwise, the cost would be out of pocket and you would be advised to use "better" birth control methods in the future. Whether those methods (such as vasectomies, tubal ligations, or even just condoms) are paid for by public insurance is an argument that would be very interesting indeed! But I hope it would be based on a doctor's recommendation. Knowing the RW, that would be a major argument - because that would only make sense and we know how much the RW hated "common sense".