Women getting punished for being women.

[bara]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4958517.html


I am lacking the words to truly express my utter dismay at this. Essentially, women have to buy 'Rape Insurance'. Otherwise they will not be reimbursed for an abortion when their life is not at stake.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I have a few thoughts on this.

First, I'm sort of shocked this passed. I didn't think Michigan was that conservative, but then I don't know too much about Michigan to begin with. It's really pathetic to see a lot of these "on the sly" attempts to legislate women's bodies so continually.

Second, since it's really up to the health insurance company what they charge to begin with, if someone was marketing savvy they would immediately offer free riders in a sort of "we'll comply with the law in the best way possible." My guess is, those costs are already buried in the current actuarial tables anyway and if you get the press out you could possibly drive a large amount of business your way. Yea, your company will be polarized publicly but no private insurer has 50% of the market anyway.

Re: Marcia Hovey-White and the Women's Democratic Caucus... I wonder how pervasive the anger is that women pay more for health insurance in general. I get it... I mean I'm pretty miffed I paid more for car insurance. But I still don't know what she expects to happen either. If insurers went with a single rate in health, that would be preferential UNLESS they immediately removed sex from every type of insurance.

[Sleepwalker]

Abortions aren't the big difference in reproductive health care costs. They are minor surgical/medicinal intervention. It's childbirth that's the doozy.

[HYHYBT]

Second, since it's really up to the health insurance company what they charge to begin with, if someone was marketing savvy they would immediately offer free riders in a sort of "we'll comply with the law in the best way possible." My guess is, those costs are already buried in the current actuarial tables anyway and if you get the press out you could possibly drive a large amount of business your way. Yea, your company will be polarized publicly but no private insurer has 50% of the market anyway.

The article seems to say that coverage won't be available at any price except through employer-provided insurance; if that's right, it seems unlikely significant numbers of businesses will make that one thing the deciding factor in who they go with.

[Rageaholic]

First, I'm sort of shocked this passed. I didn't think Michigan was that conservative, but then I don't know too much about Michigan to begin with. It's really pathetic to see a lot of these "on the sly" attempts to legislate women's bodies so continually.

We have a conservative/Republican governor who has a tendency to pass things even when more voted against it.

[Greenday]

Let's say there was a clause that also included abortions from rape pregnancies. Would anyone still object to this law?

[Aethian]

I would still object. What happens and is said between my doctor and myself is no one else's business. Specially not the government telling me I can't do something.

What gets me is I asked Mom about this since she gets the Lansing state journal, she doesn't remember seeing the story in it.

[Panacea]

Abortions aren't the big difference in reproductive health care costs. They are minor surgical/medicinal intervention. It's childbirth that's the doozy.

Only in the first trimester. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are more complicated, more risky, and more expensive. They are usually (though not always) done in hospitals.

The article seems to say that coverage won't be available at any price except through employer-provided insurance; if that's right, it seems unlikely significant numbers of businesses will make that one thing the deciding factor in who they go with.

In Michigan that is so. The article tells us this; only 7 insurers provide the rider the law requires to get an abortion covered, and only for group plans.

We have a conservative/Republican governor who has a tendency to pass things even when more voted against it.

Yes, but even he vetoed this. Read the article. A special interest group got a petition together and got it reintroduced through a procedure that didn't need the governor's signature.

Let's say there was a clause that also included abortions from rape pregnancies. Would anyone still object to this law?

Uh, that's the whole point of the new law. I think what you meant is, what if it excluded it from needing the rider. And yes, I would object to this law. State legislatures are still inserting themselves into treatment decisions between patients and doctors, and that's wrong.

[Sleepwalker]

Pan: Yes, but those are a rare subset of abortions- I'm not talking about possible, individual out of pocket costs, I'm talking about the costs of abortion as a treatment for an insurance plan as a whole. They are going to be doing a lot of much more expensive births, not so much a lot of alte term abortions. And, of course, birth has its expensive complications, too.

[s_stabeler]

um, while 3rd trimester abortions are probably quite rare, I'd have thought 2nd would be rather less rare- for a couple of reasons. 1) the chances are quite high that the mother doesn't know she's pregnant until the 2nd month- the earliest i am aware of anyone in my family knowing they are pregnant is 10 weeks 2) it's not usually a spur-of-the-monent decision- especially in states that place unusual requirements prior to abortion.

but ultimately, I believe abortion should be covered. Why? because currently, women are going without food to allow them to abort a unwanted foetus. Forcing women to pay the full costs of an abortion ISN'T going to prevent them aborting the foetus. It just increases their suffering.

I object to this on other grounds, as well. This law sets a precedent that people can demand that specific risks are excluded from insurance policies without paying more. So, where do you draw the line?

also, there is a more basic problem: this law essentially prices many women out of being able to have an abortion past the first trimester. How is THAT fair?

[Sleepwalker]

stabeler, abortions aren't priced by 'trimester'. The first week of the second trimester is going to cost much less that the last week, and ALL the weeks are going to cost less than the average birth, barring serious complications- a couple thousand dollars(20 weeks) doesn't get you much when it comes to childbirth- a vaginal delivery with no complications runs about 10k. That doesn't count prenatal care, either.

[s_stabeler]

Irrelevant. I made two points.
1) where does the legislature get the right to decide that a certain type of treatment needs special insurance?
2) people are being priced out of getting abortions- how is that fair?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The article seems to say that coverage won't be available at any price except through employer-provided insurance; if that's right, it seems unlikely significant numbers of businesses will make that one thing the deciding factor in who they go with.

I read the transcription of the billl from what I think is the organization that wrote it. Essentially this reads, it's going to be up to the insurer first to provide it and the employer second to have that insurance. So I still stand by that if you're a savvy insurer, to comply with the law you drop your rates by one cent and offer a rider for a penny (had to amend it when I read the law). Both employers and individuals can purchase it.

On the employer front this gets tricky, but I think the only way to really deal with that is for employers that won't play ball is for them to lose a sizable chunk of skilled, critical workforce. You can't teach them any other way. You can fix this just by publishing a list of the company's that didn't switch to the freeish rider plan and then providing resources for those women or men who have major issues to find new employment. You only need to effect the bottom line long enough to piss off the board. To be blunt, if you piss off 50% of women in the place where you do business (to say nothing of the men), it's going to hurt.

Try to fix the law when the election allows for it. But in the meantime, use capitalism to essentially neuter it.

[Greenday]

Irrelevant. I made two points.
1) where does the legislature get the right to decide that a certain type of treatment needs special insurance?
2) people are being priced out of getting abortions- how is that fair?

Why do people feel unnecessary procedures HAVE to be covered? (Excluding medical necessity)

[Duelist925]

Why do people feel unnecessary procedures HAVE to be covered? (Excluding medical necessity)

How is abortion an unnecessary procedure? There are a multitude of situations that make it necessary, ranging from medical (Physical and mental), to economic, to a woman simply not wanting to give birth.