Didn’t see a thread about this.
What the fuck? I’m not sure I even understand; women have to buy separate additional insurance to cover the cost of an abortion in cases of rape? Or does this apply to all abortions?
Yes, it’s for all abortions. And yes, it’s appalling.
Although I think its an idea that has really horrible consequences, I think calling it a “rape insurance” bill is a bit misleading.
All the bill really says that all basic insurance coverage must not cover abortion under any circumstances (rape included). So if you want abortion coverage you would have to pay extra. Where the rape insurance comes in is that a fertile woman who would normally not consider getting an abortions (such as one who is not sexually active, or seeking pregnancy through consensual sex) may still need to get an abortion in the case of rape. Thus such a woman would be need to take the extra coverage solely for the purpose of being insured if she is raped.
I oppose abortion but I don’t understand where any pol gets off telling an insurance company what they can and can’t cover. That is a business decision between the company and it’s clientele. This is no less appalling than trying to regulate the size of soft drinks or what kind of otherwise legal activity I can conduct in my tavern.
It’s simply not the governments damn bees wax!
The way around this is easy. Insurance companies could offer the separate rider for 2 cents. And attach the rider and extra premium to all policies unless the client ops out.
Better yet, offer the separate rider for -2 cents, so it’s cheaper than the basic one 
This.
Huh. Bricker and pkbites are both arguing that abortion is none of the government’s business.
Didn’t expect to see that when I got up this morning.
Right, because Obamacare doesn’t do that at all.
I must admit, were my mouth full of a tasty beverage while reading this thread, I would’ve done, what they call in show biz, a “spit-take.”
I got your back, buddy. I ostensibly served myself a beverage in a fake glass container then crushed it in my fist upon hearing the news.
I don’t read their comments that way.
I understand them to be saying that it’s not appropriate for governments to regulate the terms of policies offered by insurance companies, thereby interfering with the business decisions of an insurance company.
I may be incorrect, of course, and would welcome clarification.
Look, the insurance industry is under a lot of regulation and has been for a long time; every state has a Commissioner of Insurance or something similar.
That is what I was saying.
Relevant cartooning…
Why would insurance companies do that? This ill-conceived legislation is a gift to the insurance industry. They get to charge extra for services they won’t actually have to provide all that often, and stand to profit from fear at no cost to themselves.
That said, I look forward to the inevitable litigation. Should make for interesting reading as the case makes its way through the courts. Might even reach SCOTUS.
It’s also a gift to the Democrats. Looks like the Republicans want to get a head start on losing the next couple of elections.
Is it? According to this Huffington Post article, eight other states have similar laws, but insurance companies only even offer the riders in two of them:
Review this pdf to see restrictions by state. Tennessee and Louisiana prohibit all abortion coverage, rider or not on the exchanges (though have no restrictions on private plans). Six states disallow any coverage, whether private or exchange, unless woman’s life is in danger. The common denominator is that these are all bright-red states which have swallowed the Teabagging Beck-Limbaugh Kool-Aid.
Just as “dog bites man” isn’t news, it wasn’t until the once-sane state of Michigan swallowed the Kool-Aid that this story attracted attention.
ACA is supposed to allow “pre-existing conditions.” Apparently being a woman is not a valid pre-existing condition.
Just how much does an abortion cost, anyway? If they’re sufficiently rare and sufficiently inexpensive, it wouldn’t make sense to get insurance for them, anyway.
Well, there is a relatively low-cost method.
A hungry rat on a string.