Yeah, most women wouldn't buy it. The problem with Planned Parenthood is that they won't pay for you to get a procedure done by your regular doctor/health center/hospital.
The post appears to contradict its own title.
It's my fault for having the best sense of humor a roommate ever dreamed of.
Well, I laughed pretty hard, so I guess it all evens out in the end.
To give a more serious answer, there are existing non-profit abortion funds. They aren't set up as insurance, just as an organization to help women pay for abortions, but they exist to try to fill in the gaps that you're talking about.
I'm not deeply familiar with their work. There is an umbrella organization, the National Network of Abortion Funds, but if you feel like donating I would encourage you to find your local fund and give them money.
They do, of course, also work to try to organize for abortion access as well as direct funding.
And now, of course, a bigger expense than the actual procedure can be the transportation and lodging to the place you can get it done.
Wait, has E Messily been given the keys to the kingdom? Is she now operating as the power behind the throne? Is Heebie just a figurehead???
I don't need keys. I just boss Heebie around from behind the throne.
One practical obstacle to abortion-specific insurance plans would be America's violent loners: it might be hard for to identify, or have identified by talk radio etc., a sufficiently patently culpable executive at Kaiser or Blue Cross/Blue Shield to get your lone-wolf Phineas Priesthood (don't Google that if you value your peace of mind) ya-yas out, but your friendly neighborhood (or regional, or state) family-planning cooperative would offer a shorter, narrower cast of characters for smearing, harassing, threatening, etc.
9: right. But that would be an issue even if it were covered. It's an issue for lots of sick people who have to go to an academic medical center.
13: Yes, but more movable with policy change. It's a simple procedure that could be provided everywhere big enough for a women's health clinic if we let it, not specialized care that only, say, a dozen places in the country could do.
This would be great but...it has no chance of passing, right?
Plus, Amendment 69. Nice work, Colorado.
11: Rookie mistake. You're supposed to put the throne against the back wall so that nobody can be the power behind it.
14: Well yeah. So, should people support or oppose the single payer law if they care about abortion rights but also want single payer?
Isn't this a no brainier? You can have everything covered but not abortion, or you can have nothing including not having abortion covered.
19: There are probably a lot of middle and upper income women whose private insurance now covers abortion who would lose that coverage when they went on a public program. I'd be inclined to support the single-payer option, but I don't hold out much hope that we'd be able to cover abortion for a long, long time.
We should fund abortions through a tax on condoms. That's a good idea, right?
21: Perverse incentives, and not the good kind.
Maybe condom wrappers could be like box tops. If you collect enough, you can send them in for a free abortion.
My other idea would be to pay for abortions with a tax on Bibles. But that might not go over well in some quarters.
20: Hard to say. Real coverage for everyone would be a boon to lots of lower-income women, and it could conceivably save people of most income levels enough on average to make out-of-pocket abortion more affordable. Also women's health services that provide abortions would be put on a sounder financial footing by not having to provide sliding-scale services to the un-/underinsured for everything other than abortion. But if it actually takes away coverage from millions of people? Tough call.
I don't hold out much hope that we'd be able to cover abortion for a long, long time.
It's important to campaign for a repeal of the Hyde amendment.
A common misconception is that the government's ban on abortion funding through the Hyde Amendment...has the force of permanent law. It does not. It is merely a rider routinely attached to annual appropriations bills. Should the appropriations committees in Congress decide one year not to attach it, then [Department of Health and Human Services] will become free to fund abortions. Pro-lifers live in fear that this will happen, but they don't want to draw too much attention to the possibility, lest they discourage the public from thinking the Hyde Amendment is writ in stone.
In Colorado's case it appears to be a constitutional amendment from 1984, which would take more active voting to repeal.
Women in the military must go to an outside provider for an abortion and pay for it themselves. But, getting any such outside health care must be approved by a person's command. As you can guess, that is rarely done in these cases. No CO wants to be on record approving or disapproving of an abortion. Nor do servicewomen want to make such requests. This does leave the women in a vulnerable legal position as they have violated regulations.
As soon as I read the condom wrapper idea, my first thought was "interesting" ... A few seconds later I was like - Erm, what did they do with the condoms coz they sure as heck didn't use em.
Funnies aside, this is a hot topic and an important one. I'm for abortions simply because I think people should have a choice. However, there's a lot of people out there who want kids and can't have them.
I'm for abortions simply because I think people should have a choice. However, there's a lot of people out there who want kids and can't have them.
I think especially if we delete the "However" you'd get close to unanimous agreement here, but what's the connection between the two?
If people had access to decent and reliable birth control -- which I think we'd get, with single-payer health care -- the need for abortion would go way down.
It wouldn't vanish, obviously. (I had this argument just recently with an otherwise intelligent conservative person, who insisted that people who used birth control couldn't get pregnant, and therefore would never need an abortion. Ai. Because [a] no and (b) yes, there's never any reason people get abortions besides accidental pregnancies, fuckwit.)
But the need might drop down into the number that, say, a private fund could handle.
I love this post title so much. Good work roomie o geebies!
Colorado has already significantly decreased both teen pregnancy and abortion rates by improving access to long-term birth control thanks to a grant from Warren Buffet, but gawdforbid the state get too involved in that either. Still, an answer like 33's is what mine would be but I think not what was being suggested in 30.
If single payer care is anything like my Obamacare coverage, the 100s-1000s of dollars in savings from everything else would allow people to better pay out of pocket for abortions. Right now health insurance usually has a deductible of several hundred, plus co-pays plus less than 100% coverage for treatment. With Obamacare, I have no deductible, no co-pays, and 100% coverage. If something isn't covered or someone's out of network, I get informed ahead of time and change my treatment plan.
For low-income women, more effort should be made to provide funding available, either through abortion funds or through direct donations to planned parenthood. When I got my abortion, PP charged a flat rate of $450 for everything if paid upfront in cash (actual cost of procedure was about $1200), and if my insurance covered more than that, they'd reimburse the difference. (If it covered less or I were uninsured, I would have just paid the $450). I actually had pretty decent abortion coverage on my insurance, but I still ended up getting only $50 back.
Pwned by multiple people, and 33 said much more clearly and directly what I was thinking.
With Obamacare, I have no deductible, no co-pays, and 100% coverage.
This is, to put it mildly, not the typical experience.
38: It's certainly what my experience of Medicaid (as a foster/adoptive parent; I have my own private coverage) has been like. I think there's often a lot of confusion about whether "Obamacare" is referring to insurance bought on health exchanges or Medicaid expansion or something else up to and including apocalypse.
It varies a huge amount by state, too. ACA exchange plans in Texas are super shitty, and there is no way to buy better ones- it seems to be a pretty blatant attempt from both health care providers and insurers to break Obamacare from the inside.
So true! I'm waiting to see how bad things will get here with a hostile governor.
I assume B Cup just means Medicaid. I don't think even Gold exchange plans are deductible-free.
The exchange system here is well into death-spiral territory; one of the two remaining insurers participating is pulling out as premiums continue to grow massively each year. I think in this case the private insurance market is just too small to support the exchange model.
Oh yes, Medicaid is much better as far as cost-sharing goes.
The insurance picture varies a lot by state - death spiral for one could happen but might have little impact on anywhere else. Maybe impetus for bringing in public option?
Right, a lot of the problem that leads to death spirals is doing this state-by-state, which systematically disadvantages states with small populations and high costs (hi!). It's not surprising that that's how Obamacare does it since it's how the existing system was set up, but it does show some of the limitations of the incremental approach. Single-payer would presumably fix the problem Alaska is having, but given the general dysfunction of our state government I don't see it happening any time soon. We didn't even get Medicaid expansion until the governor did it unilaterally, and the legislature responded by suing him.
A public option, which looking back is what Minivet suggested rather than single-payer, would probably work too. Still, unlikely to happen.
I'm OK with 1/50 states having a health care system based on ice floes and sky burials. We may need the services of a tough, death-hardened band of Northmen with no invalids to care for when the shit goes down.
Okay, but those services won't be free.
43 seems to be what's happening here, too.
It's too bad that the co-op model seems not to be working out as planned. (A deliberate consequence of Republican sabotage, says the author of that part of the ACA.)
51 was to 49, not to you! That would be rude.
There was a post on some bulletin board from a woman covered by Tricare who was carrying triplets. They were crowding each other out, so her doctors advised her to have a selective reduction. Tricare wouldn't cover the procedure, because it was abortion even though the other fetuses were at risk. she was looking at having to spend $8k. That's just not something a planned parenthood can handle, and it's a real burden for her.
I'm not really up with the complexities of the American health care system but I assume that what the republicans want is a single prayer system
|| Friend is 10 weeks pregnant. Employer, not yet informed, offers substantial promotion -- more hours, more money, benefits, the whole thing. Tell employer now, before accepting offer, or later? No brainer, right? |>
Seems relevant to note: in front of the local Spite House is a Little Library.
Literally no question. Unless you've left out the fact that it's a family-owned business and the employer is her mother. Otherwise, tell when she thinks she's unambiguously showing plus three weeks, because she'll probably guess early on what's unambiguous.
55: Tricare is the coverage for military retirees and dependents, so a single prayer system seems apposite.
My sister is very visibly pregnant. I was going to try to convince her to not mention this to anyone at work and to deny if asked. Apparently, her sense of whimsy is compromised at the moment.
I can't see any reason to tell the employer at that point, unless it's literally in the context of "I would really like that job but I'm sorry I'm pregnant so I have to turn it down". Once it gets to the point where there might be an effect on her work, or where it would just be silly to deny it then obviously tell the employer. But up till that point, unless they're the sort of very close friend and confidant where turning down a much nicer position in order to help them out would make sense, then there's no reason to tell them.
In MA there's
(1.) straight Medicaid either through the state or non-profit managed care companies. No deductibles, no office co-pays but $3 drug co-pays except for birth control which is free.
(2.) Subsidized Connector Care plans which do not have deductibles and have low premiums and co-pays offered by teh same non-profits which also do manage the Medicaid managed care programs (up to 300% of poverty)
(3.) Exchange plans which are not subsidized and have high deductibles.
Plans of type 2 are not always accepted by private practice docs, but most doctors here are affiliated with hospitals and salaried.
Thorne: at what age do you think you'll talk to your girls about birth control. I sort of fear that I'll be dragging an 11 year-old to a gynecologist to get an IUD to be safe, and she won't even be thinking about sex until she's 15 or 16.
Here, birth control is part of the conversation about menstruation, that it's a response to that and will initially be about regulating and minimizing bleeding but that longer-term it's about not having babies until you're ready to care for them in a way that's appropriate for you and for them. I assume we'll get another round of conversation when the cats get fixed in another six weeks or so.
65: So, you've already started talking to them about it. That's great!
The older girls are 8 and 9, so the sex/birth part is still pretty remote and they still think it sounds gross. We've definitely had conversations, though. I want to get it started as early as possible because I need to be able to talk openly and without shaming them about their relatives who had children really young, that my mom is opposed to birth control and I need to know if she ever pressures them about it, that they understand the reasons they're at increased risk of teen pregnancies although I wouldn't really want to put it in those words, that their moms have made very different choices about whether and when to have more children, plus we haven't really had the personal rape discussion yet and I need to be laying the groundwork for that.
How old do you have to be before the birth part doesn't sound gross?
To be fair, the cat birth they watched a few weeks ago was quick and seemingly painless. Plus you get a kitten out of the deal. So at the moment that part is a lot less horrifying than, say, kissing.
If you always got kittens, I would probably be a lot easier for everyone involved.
"Cancel the Cesarean. This head is the size of a walnut."
56: Telling the employer about the pregnancy before accepting the promotion would seem to imply that the pregnancy would be an acceptable reason for the employer to revoke the offered promotion. I can't think of a situation in which that would be true.
Vice-president in charge of lead fumes?
OK, well maybe. Or Mother Superior probably.
Or anything in Arby's Test Kitchen.
That's where they test and perfect the recipies found in Arby's Illustrated.
|| Friend is 10 weeks pregnant. Employer, not yet informed, offers substantial promotion -- more hours, more money, benefits, the whole thing. Tell employer now, before accepting offer, or later? No brainer, right? |>
Not even close to being a brainer.
"Cancel the Cesarean. This head is the size of a walnut."
Even Zika can have a silver lining.
Brain the size of a walnut, but also back plates and tail spikes; maybe keep the surgeon on call.
"Too many episodes of Dinosaur Train" IYKWIMAITYD.
Women in the military must go to an outside provider for an abortion and pay for it themselves. But, getting any such outside health care must be approved by a person's command
WTF?
56: Congrats and congrats to your friend!
Even civilian women can't have bear arms if somebody sends an email about it.
The email probably came from PETA.
Probably some guy who can't masturbate to the weather because the woman is distracting him.