Abortion coverage MANDATORY in Senate bill exchanges!
ByWhere it is written “subsection A”, note that this is referring to “abortions for which public funding is NOT allowed.” And where it says “subsection B”, it is referring to “abortions for which public funding IS allowed. This begins on page 140 of the 1502 page newly submitted Senate Finance Committee bill.
‘‘(3) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES.—
14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary [Kathleen Sebelius] shall sure that with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered in any exchange established pursuant to this title—
18 ‘‘(i) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in subparagraphs (A) [does not provide abortion coverage] and (B) [does provide abortion coverage] of paragraph (2); [line 20, pg 140]
The current bill mandates an abortion coverage option be available through any qualified health benefits plan in the exchange:
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered in any exchange established pursuant to this title—
(i) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2); and
(ii) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in paragraph (2)(A); [line 14, pg 141]
The next bit discusses segregation of funds, and in layman’s terms, this says that even though these entities may be federally funded or get large sums of government money, they have to segregate the funds which pay for (provide) abortions. What does this mean in terms of a family budget? It means a husband and wife both work. He brings home 2,000 per week and she brings home 1,800 per week. If this family budget was going to provide abortions, it would mean that even though their combined salaries benefit their household as a whole, the actual money spent on the abortions will have to come out of the 2,000 that he brings home for that week. So essentially it is the same 3,800 pool of money, but we’re splitting it up to make it sound better. Another way to describe it is if that man goes out and buys a new Corvette without discussing it with his wife. When she freaks out, he says, “Don’t worry honey, I’m going to make the payments out of MY salary, it won’t come from yours at all. See what I’m getting at here? It’s just semantics.
‘‘(c) NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION.—A qualified health benefits plan may not discriminate against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.’’ [line 6 pg 144]
This basically means that no plan, even one that was highly against abortion, could not discriminate (i.e. not cover services at facilities that provide abortions–like planned parenthood) against any doctor or health care provider because of their WILLINGNESS to provide or refer for abortions. This feels eerily like something we call a “loophole.” The plan itself may not cover abortions, but the plan cannot refuse to pay for services at…say…an abortion clinic.
Will be updated as time permits. It is however, a 1500 page bill!
























You’re misconstruing the context. Preventing insurers from refusing to cover services at facilities that ALSO offer abortion doesn’t mean abortion is going to be covered, especially when it’s not in the bill. Abortion clinics are an extreme example–there are plenty of hospitals that perform abortions that you might be at for, say, an ear infection (or an ultrasound, or whatever). Just because you’re allowed to receive authorize treatments at any facility doesn’t mean you can suddenly receive treatment for something that isn’t covered–hospitals don’t work like this, trust me.
Instead of trying to destroy any chance for people to get any health coverage at all, it would be more productive to offer an alternative, better plan. By the way, I am vehemently pro-life and don’t support any provisions to pay for abortions. It would in fact be nice if we could reverse some of the momentum on them.