Spokane7
59°
January 6, 2012 in News, Region
WA Legislature to consider abortion insurance
In the session that begins next week in Olympia, the Washington Legislature will consider a bill that would require private insurance companies that cover maternity care to also pay for abortions.
The Seattle Times reports abortion rights groups will announce details at a news conference Sunday in Seattle.
Supporters include Rep. Eileen Cody of Seattle, who heads the House health care committee.
Dan Kennedy of the anti-abortion group Human Life of Washington says it will be vigorously opposed. It remains to be seen how the proposed legislation would be affected by the federal health care overhaul.
Washington voters approved the abortion right in 1991, passing an initiative that also requires insurance funded by the state to cover the medical procedure.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Recent stories in News
Gay marriage foes: referendum has enough signatures May 30, 2012 29- 1992 murder trial begins against sex offender May 30, 2012 1
- Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules May 30, 2012 29
- Man dies following early Saturday car crash May 30, 2012 16
- Sex trafficking suspects released as probe continues May 29, 2012 7
oneanddone on January 06 at 3:26 p.m.
Works for me. It’s obvious that fewer Washington residents would serve the general good.
The_Seer on January 06 at 3:28 p.m.
Really? You mean a state is actually making progress towards protecting the constitutional rights of women?
What gives?
gmorton on January 06 at 3:50 p.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“You mean a state is actually making progress towards protecting the constitutional rights of women?”
Really? What constitutional right would that be?
You don’t imagine that the constitutional right to obtain an abortion implies a constitutional right that someone else pay for it, do you?
But hey, anything to further increase insurance costs, which you can then blame on the “greedy” insurance companies. Right?
LOL.
Diana on January 06 at 4:41 p.m.
gmorton, I don’t want to pay for your Viagra, either.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 06 at 5:11 p.m.
gmorton –
From the first sentence of the article: “…the Washington Legislature will consider a bill that would require private insurance companies that cover maternity care to also pay for abortions.”
The last sentence: “Washington voters approved the abortion right in 1991, passing an initiative that also requires insurance funded by the state to cover the medical procedure.”
gmorton on January 06 at 5:45 p.m.
Diana wrote,
“I don’t want to pay for your Viagra, either.”
Nor should you have to, if I wished to use that product.
gmorton on January 06 at 5:55 p.m.
thatoneguy (Bruce) wrote,
“From the first sentence of the article: . . .”
Not sure what is your point. The bill would require others to pay for Diana’s abortions, namely, whoever buys health insurance in this
state, whether they desire that coverage for themselves or not – just as it requires them to pay for maternity care, contraceptives, and a dozen or so other free lunches for politically-favored groups.
Rod_Foss on January 06 at 6:36 p.m.
The unconsitutionality of the matter will be irrelevant. This legislation will not fail to pass.
I have an honest question for all the liberal commentators. You don’t have to be afraid to give an honest answer (but if you do, please answer the question, don’t wander off into evasive side remarks):
What’s next? What do you want to see happen next? Is there an agenda item up for its turn? If there is no consensus, what might be a next victory? Do any of you have a wish list with a major issue or issues that need to happen soon for this country to really turn in your favor?
Remember, Obama’s a shoo-in, and I hope none of you answer that so-and-so should get elected or not reelected. I mean the bigger stuff, corporate vision stuff, “where do you see yourself in 5 years” stuff (I hate that last one on interviews). And not “love and peace for all,” good as that sounds, but something a bit more specific.
You cannot lose or be deterred, so you have no reason to fear giving a forthright response.
I assure you, this is not a loaded or sarcastic question; I really do want to know. Will any of you answer me?
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 06 at 9:51 p.m.
gmorton:
The “Seattle Times reports” link provided in the article explains a lot.
(a) Private insurers are not currently required to offer coverage for abortions.
(b) State-funded plans are required to do so, and have been since 1991.
(c) When (if) health-care reform comes along, the line between public & private plans might blur, and the abortion-rights folks want to make sure that when (if) that happens, the right to purchase coverage (or have it provided by state plans) doesn’t disappear.
(d) From that Seattle Times article: “In general, insurers don’t like coverage mandates, but the state already has imposed 14 coverage requirements, including contraception, mammograms, prostate-cancer and colorectal-cancer screenings. A state ‘conscience clause’ law allows health-insurance plans sponsored by religious organizations to refuse to pay for abortion.”
So. If I understand this right:
If Diana is covered by a state-funded insurance plan and wants an abortion, then we all have to chip in .02 of a tax dollar or whatever, whether we want to or not, and she gets to have it. If she’s enrolled in Holy Right-to-Life Health Insurance Co. Inc.’s “virginity plus” plan and they don’t offer abortion coverage, she has to pay for it on her own.
Under this new proposal, any insurance company that wanted to sell policies in Washington would have to cover abortion in addition to contraception, mammograms, and all the other stuff from that list above. But the “conscience clause” (which looks like a separate law as far as I can tell) would mean that Holy Right-to-Life Health Insurance Co. Inc. could get an exemption from that requirement.
What I don’t see is a requirement that anybody buying private health insurance is going to be required to pay for other people’s abortions. Unless you mean in the same sense that my health insurance covers other people’s broken arms and heart attacks. I may be subsidizing irresponsible teenage skateboarders and irresponsible middle-aged red-meat-eating smokers, but that’s how insurance companies work. If you’re against the existence of health insurance companies, and in favor of those personal health savings account thingies instead, then okay. That’s different.
In any case, whether this makes any sense to you, I feel like I understand it better now, so thanks for helping me with that.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 06 at 9:55 p.m.
Rod_Foss: I would love to see federal recognition of marriage equality. My domestic partnership is awful nice & stuff, but after 24 years I still have to file my taxes as “single” even though I am the main support of my household.
Peace & love for all would be nice, too.
WillyPeter on January 07 at 6:08 a.m.
^^^^as soon as you support my right to marry whom I want, I’ll support yours……:-)
gmorton on January 07 at 7:45 a.m.
thatoneguy (Bruce) wrote,
“What I don’t see is a requirement that anybody buying private health insurance is going to be required to pay for other people’s abortions. Unless you mean in the same sense that my health insurance covers other people’s broken arms and heart attacks.”
Let me try to explain.
Insurance is a method of risk-pooling: you participate in order to share risks with others who wish to minimize *the same or similar risks*. Mandated coverages (of any kind) force people to pool with others who desire coverage for risks they do not share, and therefore for which they do not need coverage.
So, no, mandated abortion coverage (or any other mandated coverage) is not “the same sense” as coverage against heart attacks. I run a certain risk of suffering a heart attack, and therefore wish to insure against it, so I’m willing to pool with others who share that risk. I run no risk whatever of becoming pregnant, becoming a drug addict or alcoholic, or needing an abortion. Hence I would not rationally buy coverages for those eventualities. But the State forces me to buy it anyway, in order to subsidize coverage for people who do want that coverage. I’m forced to provide them a free lunch if I wish to buy any kind of health insurance in this state.
In a rational economy people insure against losses for which there is a calculable risk, and they pay premiums according to the magnitude of that risk. They do not insure against events for which their risk is zero, and pay for that unnecessary coverage.
Get it?
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 07 at 9:21 a.m.
gmorton – so couldn’t you buy health insurance through a company that has a conscience clause? That way abortion would not be part of what’s covered in the risk pool. As I understand it that would not change under the new law.
Meanwhile, I think it’s our tax dollars, not our health insurance premium dollars, that are paying for publicly-funded abortions; so we’re all providing that free lunch whether we buy health insurance or not.
gmorton on January 07 at 11:00 a.m.
thatoneguy (Bruce) wrote,
” … so couldn’t you buy health insurance through a company that has a conscience clause?”
Perhaps. But that reduces my options, since only plans offered by religious organizations qualify for that exception. Since there are few such companies, my premiums would likely be higher. (The constitutionality of that exception is itself dubious. It “establishes religion” as the only acceptable basis for a conscientious objection to abortion).
Abortion, however, is not the fundamental issue – it is being forced by the State to finance free lunches for someone else in order to meet your own needs. I.e., forced charity.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 07 at 3:21 p.m.
So it looks like abortion should either be covered by all companies or not at all, and if I understand you correctly, you come down on the “not at all” side. Okay.
But your larger issue of “being forced by the state to finance free lunches for someone else in order to meet your own needs, i.e. forced charity” sounds like … well, taxes to me. Or rather, that’s a part of what taxes do.
gmorton on January 07 at 4:34 p.m.
thatoneguy (Bruce) wrote,
“So it looks like abortion should either be covered by all companies or not at all, and if I understand you correctly, you come down on the ‘not at all’ side.”
Certainly not.
Whether insurers offer coverage for abortion, or anything else, should be their decision. It would usually depend on whether they perceive a demand for it. If some of their customers express a desire for abortion coverage, mental health coverage, maternity coverage, etc., the company can add a rider to their policy and adjust their premiums accordingly.
That’s how economies in free societies work. The gummint doesn’t presume to dictate to anyone what products or services to sell, to whom they must sell them, or what they may charge for them. That’s how command economies work.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 07 at 5:30 p.m.
Hmmm. OK, I’ll have to think about that. Hope it doesn’t make my head cave in.