White House Health Plan Fails Women "NOW"

[saracat]

http://www.now.org/issues/health/022310hcr.html
February 23, 2010
"The president's proposal to revive health care reform from its current state of paralysis needs major revision," according to Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "Although his proposal is an improvement over the status quo on issues such as affordability and accountability of insurers, the effort fails because it embraces the same harmful provisions that are in the Senate health care bill."
The worst feature of the president's proposal -- a real poison pill as far as NOW is concerned -- is retention of the Senate bill's Reid-Nelson anti-abortion language. Forced upon the Senate in order to reach the crucial 60th filibuster-proof vote, this provision requires any exchange-based health insurance plan that covers abortion care to segregate funds by charging separate premiums each month for abortion and all other services. In practice, everyone in a plan that covers abortion care would have to write two checks each month and health experts have predicted that these restrictions would lead to the end of private as well as public insurance coverage for abortion care. Since about one-third of women in this country have abortions, and nearly 90 percent of private health plans currently cover abortion procedures, the President's plan, like the Senate's, would deprive millions of women of insurance coverage they currently have.

The president's proposal also lets stand a Senate bill provision that permits insurers to charge women more because they are women. Although we have been repeatedly told that gender rating would be prohibited -- and President Obama even stated in a major health policy address that gender rating would be banned in reform legislation -- his proposal leaves this costly and discriminatory provision in place. As a result, women who get insurance through the new health insurance exchange could be paying as much as 48 percent more than men -- as is currently the case in the discriminatory individual health insurance market.

Another damaging feature is the retention of age rating -- the practice of charging older individuals more for their insurance coverage. The Senate bill allows insurance companies to charge as much as three times more than they charge a younger person. For many middle-aged women who have modest incomes, this is an unacceptable burden.

[saracat]

1. Some folks disagreed about the issue of laguage.I guess they also disagree with NOW.

[karynnj]

42. Yes - they are playing it cute - calling it Reid-Nelson language

is at least better than you insisting it was Nelson language is wrong.

I disagreed with the NY chapter of NOW when they in disgusting terms attacked Kennedy for endorsing Obama. Their comments on the abortion part are not correct and inflammatory. Barbara Boxer worked on getting the language to not shift the status quo on abortion. President Obama and others took the position that this bill was not designed to impact the status quo on abortion.

NOW disagrees, NO SURPRISE. The political reality is that there is not consensus that this should be paid with tax money and it is a sufficient voting concern to kill the whole bill. It is NOT worth risking the bill.

[saracat]

49. yeah well. I support NOW because I support women . I don't care about the politicians no matter

who they are.And I think the Bill stinks and according to the WH, who are prepared to make more concessions, it apparently will be worse.Sorry but a little bit less unfair and incremental change amounting to very little while corporations are guaranteed a financial payday doesn't cut it for me.Mandates without total coverage for women is unacceptable.

[karynnj]

54. I have been a member of Now

The fact is that the Senators KNOW what is in the bill. If there is a disagreement on facts, I will go with the Senators who wrote the language over the women in NOW, who clearly made some factual errors here.

[saracat]

57. I don't trust Senators. They are politicians and will vote and say whatever benefits them.

Occasionally I may agree but I would NEVER trust one.And BTW, I know what is in the current bill too.And I also have a heads up on what the WH is willing to do.Neither of which I support.

[karynnj]

60. But, you trusted John Edwards

The fact is that if they say on the floor of the Senate that something is in the bill - it is. There is NO possible gain in lying. If you know what is in the bill, why don't you state how the rates for men vs woman differ?

You have a personal heads up on what the WH is willing to do? Highly unlikely.

[saracat]

64. And I was wrong on Edwards. But he did have a good message.

And yeah,I actually do have a contact in the WH but so do many folks.It may surprise you but many people work for the WH and many people get info. It isn't that special.But anyone can see what is coming down the pike.Just take a look at Kaine's email.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. One of many reasons I am against this --

bullshit bill.

[Deep13]

3. What a relief! I was afraid we were going to start treating women like people.

:sarcasm: :grr:

[Captain Hilts]

4. Yes. The language is insulting. Women's rights are negotiable and expendable. nt

[saracat]

5. Obviously it appears that some both disagree and find the topic

not worthy. I find it disgraceful that any Democrat would dismiss this issue.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Sebelius: "Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited circumstances.'

In a Tuesday news story titled, "Abortion is latest controversy in health overhaul," AP asserted that "nearly 90 percent of employer-based private insurance plans routinely cover abortion."

Writing at the Weekly Standard, John McCormack says the statistic is simply "not true."

He points to April testimony from Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told members of the Senate that "Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances."

He also notes that AP could have looked to coverage from Congressional Quarterly, which reported as recently as July 15 that, "Most people with employer-sponsored insurance also must pay for abortions out of their own pocket."

CQ cited Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry’s trade association, who said, "Most insurers offer plans that include this coverage, but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits package."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5264.html

[saracat]

8. You are quoting a Pro-Life site from their Christain news? An RW source?

Gee. Part of the Big Tent, aren't you?

[flpoljunkie]

12. The quotes from Sebelius are direct. I am a pro-choice, lifetime member of Planned Parenthood.

The Senate provisions for abortion coverage are worthless. I think we must pass healthcare, regardless, for the health of everyone--men, women and children. Sebelius said this in Senate testimony.

He points to April testimony from Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told members of the Senate that "Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances."

[saracat]

14. But that is an RW link. And even if she is right , so what?

Do you agree that insurance companies have the right to dictate surgical procedures, or reproductive health?

[flpoljunkie]

18. As long as Congress clings to the hideous Hyde Amendment, they have the right to deny federal funds

for abortion. In fact, as Sebelius stated in testiony before the Senate, "Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances."

I think, and have always thought, it is reprehensible that women's reproductive rights are ignored by our elected representatives, but I would not scrap getting this healthcare bill passed to insist abortion coverage be included. I find that absurd.

[saracat]

24. In fairness, this is only one reason this bill is crap. What about the age and gender rating as well

among other issues. But the age and gender rating, speciofically as effecting women is unfair.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Rates same for both sexes for younger people. I would go with Vermont's 20% more for seniors.

Do you know what Obama has proposed for the age rating. The House was better than the Senate plan, as I recall.

[karynnj]

47. The gender provision is in there

It was Kerry's and he has referred to in Senate speeches often. The age ratings replace NO cap - in Kentucky the ratio is 34:1 - so this is better than the status quo. (If you watched the Finance committee hearings, Kerry was able to get it from the 5:1 that Baucus had down to 4:1 and he and Dodd pushed Reid to get it to 3:1. By the way, men age too.

[saracat]

40. I believe you, but I do not agree.

[flpoljunkie]

37. Found another link on Sebelius' comments from the NYT.

Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, was asked about the issue in April when her nomination was being considered by the Senate Finance Committee.

“Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances, but do cover family planning,” Ms. Sebelius said. “And Congress has limited the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan to covering abortion services only in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/health/policy/20abortion.html?_r=2

[saracat]

41. I don't doubt that she said that but even if that is true, it doesn't make it right. That is my

point. It also doesn't address the other injustices in the bill.

[karynnj]

45. It is a quote from teh Secretary of HHS

The fact is that NOW gives no source for their assertion. I KNOW they are wrong on the gender differential because various Senators have said it is there.

[saracat]

53. I didn't say she was wrong , though I have no particular reason to believe her. She

has to defend the plan.I said that is is unfair even if it is true. I don't care what she said or what insurance companies are currently doing.It is still wrong.

[karynnj]

61. but you believe anonymous members of NOW

[saracat]

65. They don't have anything to gain. And one can always contact

national officers who do have names and question positions.

[karynnj]

71. They have a lot to gain

This is an issue and they will use it for gaining members. Not to mention having nothing to gain does not mean that you are accurate. It is quite possible to be wrong, but not intentionally lying.

Not to mention, they do have an agenda. If you remember, after 2004, they complained that Kerry had not supported abortion to the degree they thought he should have. This, even though, he has voted the way they prefer each and every time. Their upset was due to the fact that he said he was personally against it.

Here, I think their anger is that, like in 2004, they see the exclusion as only partial acceptance of abortion - which is a valid POV, but it actually is where the country as a whole is - if you look at any detailed polling. Now, I am not saying that you should be poll driven, but it is valid for a Congressmen or Senator to vote either their conscience or the viewpoint of the people in their area. The fact is the bill settles on the uneasy compromise that neither side really likes. This bill does not make things worse - their analysis is wrong - both in saying 90% of policies cover it and in conflating that the GOVERNMENT will not pay for it to saying the individuals purchasing their own policies are affected. (This was true for Stupak, but not the Senate.)

[saracat]

75. I didn't say they don't have an agenda. I support their agenda.

I support their using this issue to gain new members. I support what they stand for.I support this issue and all the issues relating to women's equality.

ALL politcians are concerned about reelections and they do whatever will ensure that.That and money is the first priority of any politcian's agenda. And it is part and parcel of the winning is everything philospohy we have today. I see many posts excusing politcal rhetoric as a nessary expedience.And individuals who are mandated to buy coverage should be fully covered.Otherwise women could just have the abortion and not be subject to a mandate.It would be cheaper. Now every woman will have to be mandated and will have to pay extra for abortion coverage. I am not even going to get into a debate about how that effects poor women.Suffice it to say, adversely.
I am so tired of the "this will make things slightly better, or not change things for women at all" argument.

[karynnj]

82. Otherwise women could just have the abortion and not be subject to a mandate.It would be cheaper.

That assumes that the main health care a woman is likely to need is an abortion. Even from NOW, only 30% of women have abortions and I assume that is over their entire lives. So, in a given year, that equates to something between 1 and 2 percent. Not to mention, even for the women who want an abortion, they may have greater health care needs. (Not to mention, nothing in the Senate bill keeps them from buying the plan with abortion coverage. )

I also think that for most Senators, they could have an easier, less stressful, less time consuming job in the private sector.

You completely mistake comments where many of us are saying that the votes are not there for a healthcare plan that adds abortion coverage to Medicaid and other plans - repealing the Hyde amendment. Now, it was obvious in the House that they could not pass the bill without the Stupak amendment, which is why Pelosi agreed to it. So, what sense would it make for Congressmen and Senators to vote against the bill with the least restrictive language that could pass?

[saracat]

85. Same old same old.Of course it isn't the main health care a woman is likely to need. That isn't the

point and Pelosi caved because the "boys" on both sides were playing political theater and jockeying for position and trying to dictate to the WH. The Wh, OTOH, didn't care what was in the Bill as long as they get a win. Everybody wants to be top dog and none of this is really about HCR. It will be interesting to see what they end up with no that Pelosi is flexing a little muscle. Since she seems tired of the faux bi-partisanship maybe she'll exert some girl power to try and claim at least a watered down PO.And it is really naive to assume our pampered senators really have stressful lives.The only time they are "stressed" is running for re-election.That is stressful but the benes make it worth it.
The people who have stressful lives are those without health care who have lost their jobs, and yes the poor women who can't afford either the children they have or the cost of an abortion for the one they may be carrying. Those are the people under stress.
Those Senators are where they want to be because they choose to be there for the money and power.There are benefits they can never equal in the private sector.They fought to be where they are and I certainly do not have any sympathy for any "stress" they may encounter.The power of their position is like a drug to most and it isn't because they care about the people.the rule of politics is that the will of the people will be done only when it coincides with that of those in power. Qui Bono.

[katandmoon]

10. So, of course the Obama administration will follow private industry's lead. That's their REAL base.

Unlike even Bill Clinton, who immediately upon his first inauguration forced FEHBP insurance company participants to cover abortions for federal employees. It CAN be done. But the Obama administration has no interest in doing it.

[saracat]

11. What amazes me is how acceptable some find this. They seriously don't have a problem with women be

being discriminated against.

[CBR]

7. Everyone I know that has had an abortion had to pay for it all themselves.

[saracat]

9. Wow. Should I just accept that as evidence of a universal fact?

[CBR]

13. Yeah, that is what I said. I was just stating my experience but apparently

your's is the only one that should be accepted as universal fact.

[saracat]

15. I didn't say anything. I posted a quote from NOW. And Ill bet you didn't go to the link.

[CBR]

17. I went to the damn link. I agree with some of what they

stated. I just wanted to provide my experience which was that the women I know who have had abortion have had to pay out-of-pocket. What is the big deal?

[saracat]

21. Nothing. it is just the point doesn't matter.Each abortion is different.

Sometimes women use their own funds because they don't want spouses or parents know.Some don't have insurance.Reasons vary.I don't understand the p[oint of your post. I know women who have both used insurance and those that have not.It proves nothing either way.

[karynnj]

50. The fact is that NOW does not cite a study to back their assertion

It is countered by the Secretary.

[saracat]

63. What study does the Secretary cite, or do you think her word is just good enough?

Sorry but just the fact that the Secretary said something doesn't make it any more meaningful than NOW.If anything she has an agenda to support the Admin and Now's agenda is to support women.I like Sebeilius but like the others she is just a politician.She worries about her own interests.

[mkultra]

22. current coverage is the only question that is pertinent

most insurance covers abortion for medical necessity but does not cover elective abortion. At least that what i believe is true. If that is not the case then the new plan should cover it. since we are trying to come up with a universal plan, they are going to be forced to strike a balance that pleases the most people. Gaps will be filled by supplemental or adjusted up over time. I don't think its possible to cover EVERY issue that people want covered.

[CBR]

30. Thank you for your response. I agree with your statement. nt

[ecstatic]

78. That has been my experience as well. The OP and women of

NOW probably have great insurance plans...but many people who don't have insurance at all pay out of pocket.

[ProSense]

16. "nearly 90 percent of private health plans currently cover abortion procedures"

And "nearly 90 percent of private health plans currently cover abortion procedures" that aren't paid for using federal funds, except in the case of rape or incest.

Nothing is this bill changes that, and women can continue to pay for abortions procedures with private money.

Now what is it about that you don't understand?

[saracat]

19. The same things apparently NOW doesn't. BTW, I guess you approve of the age and gednder rating?

[ProSense]

23. The age rating wasn't a compromise

It's an improvement over the up to 11 times that current law permits.

[saracat]

26. Though I am not sure I trust that figure, what difference does it make? Unfair is still unfair.

And a larger burden is still placed on women.That is not acceptable.

[flpoljunkie]

20. In defense of sarcat, the Senate's abortion coverage is totally impractical and unworkable.

[ProSense]

25. The Senate bill is a hell of a lot better

than the disgraceful Stupak amendment. The Senate bill preserves the current law.

[saracat]

28. Which isn't a good thing either but we can't expect better from this Senate

No one is going to even try to overturn Hyde.Ironic, we can pay for abortions overseas now but not in the USA.

[karynnj]

73. If they want to overturn Hyde, they should first pass healthcare - then see if there is support

The fact is this is not the time to fight for funding abortions. It is a very tight battle that we can still lose. If worse comes to worse, non-profits can raise money to assist people who can't afford them - but, in terms of overall health, it is a very small piece.

[flpoljunkie]

32. Yes, but it is totally unworkable. What woman is going to buy separate abortion coverage.

No one, that's who.

[saracat]

43. I agree with this.

[katandmoon]

27. You obviously didn't work for the U.S. government during the first two years of the Clinton

administration -- when federal employee health coverage DID include abortion, thanks to his executive order.

[saracat]

29. Absolutely correct.

[ProSense]

33. Get your facts straight

Obama reverses abortion-funding policy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.

<...>

The policy says any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.

Obama's memorandum reversing the policy comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave a woman autonomy over her pregnancy during the first trimester.

The memorandum reverses the "Mexico City policy," initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.

<...>

[saracat]

34. Excuse me?I said that it was ironic to have overseas funding

for abortions but not in the USA.I have my facts stright , thank you very much.

saracat (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-25-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Which isn't a good thing either but we can't expect better from this Senate
No one is going to even try to overturn Hyde.Ironic, we can pay for abortions overseas now but not in the USA.

[katandmoon]

36. Yes, you do.

[katandmoon]

35. That has NOTHING to do with health insurance coverage for abortion.

Nice try though.

[ProSense]

46. Can you provide a link

to where federal funds were used to pay for abortion services?


Are you confusing federal funds with the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which is paid for with private funds?

It is similar to the plan in the Senate bill, which while administered by the OPM, is paid for with private funds.

[Captain Hilts]

51. Don't muddle the argument with facts!

[ProSense]

52. Where are the facts? n/t

[karynnj]

38. Reid-Nelson language? - No, it is not the Nelson language, it is the Reid language

and they are showing the same stupidity some chapters showed whan they attacked Senator Kennedy because he endorsed Obama.

The fact is the Senate bill has a provision (it was a Kerry provision and it was added) that ensures that the cost for women equals the cost for men and Obama kept it. So, I assume they are speaking of paying extra for abortion insurance, which men do not have to pay. But, the change to gender parity for the rest of the cost ALONE means the total cost for a woman wanting insurance for women is lower than it was before - because that provision lowers the cost more than paying by a second check for abortion would cost.

The comments on PRIVATE insurance ignore that there is a need for two checks only when the government is paying one of them - the bigger one for everything but abortion. People currently on Medicaid do not have abortion funded and they do not have the option of buying this insurance with their own money. So, this is an improvement. For the people who pay all or part of their insurance, their portion can be one check. The point is that the government can not pay for it. That keeps things exactly where it is now with the Hyde amendment.

When 30 million unisured people, including women and children, get insurance, people can't be excluded due to pre-existing conditions and other improvements that abortion is the first thing they mention. As to the age rating, the status quo in some states has a spread of as much as 34 to 1 - this is an improement. As to those on modest incomes, if they are below a threshold, they get subsidies.

[saracat]

39. yeah those Pro-Choice folks are just stupid.We really ought to have more respect for those anti

choice Dems because we can get their votes on more important issues.:sarcasm: And the insurance companies already have a way around the preexisting conditions clause. Sorry but I really don't see why anyone should be grateful for something which might be, at best marginally less unfair to women.:mad:

[ProSense]

48. Actually, it says NOW is showing the same stupidity... n/t

[saracat]

55. Yeah, pro-choice women who place a priority on equal medical care are stupid

Women who question this HCR are all stupid.:sarcasm: Thanks.Good to know where some stand on this issue.

[karynnj]

59. Where the Hell are you coming from

No one said pro-choice was stupid. We need the votes ON THIS BILL.

They are making a mountain out of a molehill because of their political agenda. Using their undocumented estimate that one third of women have an abortion (s?) - what do you think is the average annual cost for a first timester abortion. (I am making the assumption that later abortions are usually medically indicated and covered.) The average cost of first trimester is $450. Now women have a reproductive life of as much as 30 years - but I'll use 20. The average cost per all women is then .3 times $450 divided by 20 which equals $6.75. Even the annual cost just to those women is $20.25.

The fact is that various groups, like Planned Parenthood do help peope who can not afford it.

[saracat]

69. Hey, Now was called stupid in tht thread and as they represent pro-choice that is how it sounded.

and unlike politcians, they represent only women.

[karynnj]

72. "unlike politcians, they represent only women" - what does that have to do with the price of tea in

China?

NOW is pro-choice, but being pro-choice does not mean you are in NOW. There are far more pro-choice people than there are NOW members, which can and do include men.

[saracat]

74. I agree but all I am saying is NOW only represents women. Politcians represent themselves and

the groups that pay for their votes or influence.

[OhioBlue]

83. no.. but maybe you should have some respect and empathy

for people that don't have any insurance at all for things like cancer, heart conditions, diabetes, genetic disorders, severe allergies, asthma, and just plain contagious diseases that left unchecked, turn fatal.

We're talking about people that are gonna freakin' die b/c they don't have access to health care. And people that have died b/c of it.

I'm vehemently pro-choice, I'm a donor to NOW be I'll be damned if I'm going to support killing a bill that can help thousands of people with serious health conditions because I draw my line at strengthening insurance coverage of abortion.

Yes - NOW has a specific agenda and one which I support... but unfortunately of late, their agenda has been a little narrow minded. There are plenty of women with serious health conditions that work in shit jobs like home health aid, retail, etc. and have no f-in insurance at all.

Do we need to keep fighting? yes. Is killing this bill a battle won? absolutely not. It is a battle lost.

Pass the bill, win the battle for thousands of women that need treatment for health issues and fight on.

[saracat]

86. This Bill isn't going to help those folks. And the fast is, is we pass this garbage,

we aren't ever going to get another crack at the bat.they aren't going to revisit this and make it better. Not these folks.These are not the pols of yesteryear. BTW, this isn't about access to health care anyway.This is alleged health insurance reform and a pretty poor reform at that.We need real HCR, and just maybe, screaming about it might get us something nominal. But it is insulting to barter women like cattle.Why should a woman have to "choose" between health care and reproductive health care? Why should we allow them to create a difference between the two? If other countries can get this right, why can't we? Are we that stupid? Or maybe its because this really isn't about the people at all.

[cornermouse]

44. I sincerely believe that Obama and the democratic party

deciders decided they could capture the religious right vote. They thought that if they got rid of womens' rights that the religious right would hop on board. I could have told them how wrong they would be about that, but...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

56. DLCers like Rahm have been actively courting --

anti-choice Democratic candidates to run. :mad: It was all part of his strategy to free the Democrats from the influence of "special interest groups" (aka women).

Fuck every anti-choice Dem and an adminstration that would sell women's health out.

[saracat]

58. Yes they have, and some even approve of this.

[ProSense]

62. It's not just

Rahm, which is why it's ridiculous for people to pretend that Nelson isn't part of the Democratic majority.

[saracat]

66. What does that have to do with anything? Dean isn't an elected official? And what does the majority

have to do with whether this is fair to women? That link has nothing to do with anything.

[ProSense]

67. Read the response and related comment.

You'll figure it out, maybe.

[saracat]

68. Its not just Rahm? You want say Dean likes this? So what?

it still has nothing to do with the OP and fairness to women.

[ecstatic]

79. Link?

[Dinger]

70. K & R Sara

Fucked up as hell. I thought our President would know better and do better. Well, . . .

[amborin]

76. choice is not the only problem! read here:

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/145124/abortion_is_not_the_only_fight_for_women_in_health_reform

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

81. Exactly, not unlike the bailout to the Banksters, even Obama's plan merely equates to MANDATES ...

and big wet Mega-BILLION dollar kisses to The Insurance Cartel.

WE WILL REGRET IT! :(

[noamnety]

84. Another k&r.

interesting.