A quick search seems to indicate $350.00-$550.00.
That’s what I was thinking. So, leaving out the emotion and looking at it from a purely financial perspective (which is what one does when buying insurance) what are the chances that a typical woman of fertility age has of both getting raped and subsequently becoming pregnant by said rape in a given year? It must be extremely low.
As the total possible financial exposure of that, in abortion cost terms, is at most $550, it would seem that nobody should ever buy insurance for it.
Medicaid covers abortion in cases of rape, so the poorest women are OK. It’s going to be the not-so poor but not middle class women who are at risk. If the rider costs $10/year, then maybe it’s worth that. If it’s $50/year, probably not.
But then again, something like 1/3 of all women get an abortion at some point, and this is about abortion in general, not just abortion in cases of rape. Of course, if that 33% statistic is correct, then one would expect the premium to be on the high side.
Depends on the cost of the rider, doesn’t it? I don’t suppose the legislators, in their cough wisdom, set a limit to what can be charged for the rider, did they?
My mistake. All abortions. Even so, with my offhanded calculations, let’s say a woman is fertile from age 15 to 45 or 30 years. With a 1/3 chance of needing/wanting/choosing an abortion, the break-even point, assuming an abortion costs $550, would be $6.11 per year, or a monthly premium of 51 cents. Any more than that is a bad deal.
Not really. It might make sense to pay more for insurance when you’re young, and then drop it as you get older and have more income.
Given the high deductibles of exchange plans, is this even relevant? A woman wouldn’t get coverage anyway for a $500 medical procedure if her deductible is $5000.
That’s sure as shit what I would do if I were the DNC. Take this and try to nationalize it as ‘Republicans hate women so much they want to use the law to FORCE them to have babies.’ or somesuch. Getting that out there in the national discourse over next summer/fall should be worth an extra congressional seat or two.
That’s pure hyperbole. There is no law that attempts to “force” women to have babies. Just that insurance won’t cover a $500 procedure. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything else worth $500 that a person attempts to insure against. Like adaher said, most insurance has a higher deductible than that. If my house burns down, I have to pay $1000 before insurance kicks in.
Further it is an elective procedure (it is a choice, right???). What other insurance does the insured have a choice in whether a qualifying event has occurred? It seems like a further twisting of the insurance model of health care where it isn’t needed and doesn’t apply.
Maybe, like Todd Akin, you’re not clear on how rape works.
First off, many exchange plans are not high-deductable. Second, those that are are deductibles per year, not per procedure. Thirdly, even in the best case, only about 25% of Americans will even be on an exchange plans (most of the rest will get medicare, medicaid, or an employer plan, none of which are usually high-deductable) so neither of these is really a valid argument.
Because they don’t give a shit about the free market when it comes to their own sacred cows. Just like when you hear people yapping about “small government” then calling for banning gay marriage, birth control, sex ed, etc. It’s all a smoke screen.
That has nothing at all to do with how it plays. There’s already an existing ‘Republican Women Problem’ out there in the electorate. Whether that’s true or earned or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that by pushing that button - and making this move (and similars around the country) perceived as a ‘rape’ insurance bill - has the potential to force congressional candidates into explaining something they didn’t do. That makes them look defensive and they lose several news cycles with negative press.
This is a remarkable misunderstanding. “Small government” calls typically refer to a desire to see a lessened role for federal law; “small” state or local government is preferred over “large” federal government.
Let’s take each example you raise, seriatim, and explore how each relates to “small government.”
[ul]
[li]Banning gay marriage – the vast majority of calls related to gay marriage are interested in removing federal government from the definition of marriage, and ensuring that the states do not change their definitions of marriage to include gay marriage. This does not conflict with a desire for a small government.[/li][li]Birth control – unless you’re discussing the issues in play in 1965, I suspect you mean to refer to the current debate over applying the ACA – a federal law – to require companies to pay for health insurance that covers contraception. Being against this is entirely consistent with favoring small government.[/li][li]Sex ed – Here, again, there is no conflict – any desire to change or control sex ed in schools would be local or state in nature.[/li][/ul]
In all honesty, I very rarely see “small government” advocates make the large/small distinction a federal/state one - rather, it’s government, or regulation, or red tape, or law, or however it is put, full stop that they would like to see decreased. And even in those cases where state power is preferred to federal power, it is often preferred only as the lesser of two evils.
Obviously there are people who would agree with you on this. But a “remarkable misunderstanding”? No, I don’t think it’s reasonable to declare your interpretation to be what the majority of supporters mean when they say that. I think there’s enough who’d agree with** Guin’s** interpretation to say that - even if that, too, is not a majority understanding of the term among supporters - it isn’t a “remarkable misunderstanding” to claim that it is.
This word is awesome (I just looked it up). Where can I find more of this nature to use in everyday conversation? Am I going to be forced to learn Latin?
44% of the female vote and falling!
Um…hanging around legal geeks?
I for one am disgusted to see women’s healthcare being made into a political issue. I long for the day we get a truly progressive administration in place, that will ensure that these kinds of decisions are solely between a woman and her doctor.
According to the story I heard on the radio (so no cite), the Michigan legislature was able to pass this law with a simple majority in each house despite the veto of the Republican governor due to some Michigan law that lets them bypass the governor by getting signatures from just 4% of the voters in the state.