This debate is moving into a rather fascinating area. Until this debate, I knew nothing about the extent to which private insurance companies paid for abortion. I admit it. If you told me it was never covered, I would have believed it. And the vehemence of the opposition to abortion coverage in plans in the exchange suggested that it was rare, if not non-existent, in the private sector.
Except that it isn’t. We have entered a phase in the debate whereby people are arguing over private coverage of abortion. The source of the data is the Guttmacher Institute. They claim that 87 percent of employer-based insurance plans cover some form of abortion, and they say specifically that plans that restrict their coverage to the hard cases (rape, incest, life of mother) are rare. On the other hand, Guttmacher says that only 13 percent of abortions are directly billed by abortion providers to private insurance companies. There could be many reasons for the difference, including restrictions in the plan, the private nature of abortion, and seeking reimbursement directlty.
All sides are seizing on it. Guttmacher, who wants to argue that abortion is a normal health service, is saying that it underestimates the amount of abortions paid for by insurance as it excludes those who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves (and I certainly do this all of the time in my health care plan). They also note that 13 percent of abortions are paid for by Medicaid – despite the Federal ban, the government has winked at state wiggle room for years.
At the same time, many on the right are saying that the 13 percent numbers shows that abortion is not an important aspect of health insurance. This line of reasoning surprises me, as they are shooting themselves in the foot. If we can dismiss concerns about abortion funding private insurance so blithely, then we can dismiss concerns about the plans in the exchange, as they will only follow the industry standard. Conversely, if there is a problem with abortion coverage in the exchange, there is a problem with private insurance. It’s two sides of the same coin.
This is obvious. Why do so many miss it? What explains the great willingness to remove the splinter from the government’s eye while ignoring the plank in the eye of private enterprise? Is it the dominant laissez-faire ideology of individualism? Notice how many people on the right who chew out the health care plan for covering abortion make references (sometimes inadvertently) to phrases like “socialized medicine” and “government take-over of medicine” phrases with no relationship to reality. Does this guide their approach?
The reality is, private insurance has its hands dirty with the abortion industry. We can debate how dirty, but we cannot skirt over this basic fact. We recently learned that the Republican National Committee (RNC) has covered abortion since 1991. Why did we not know this for 18 years? (Ironically, the RNC policy also covers consultations on end-of-life issues – something that Sarah Palin once referred to as death panels!) Of course, Michael Steele immediately moved to end the abortion coverage, but what does this prove? You can be sure that if this insurer is covering abortion for the RNC, it is covering abortion for a lot more people too. The RNC’s premiums are still going into the same corporate pot that is paying for abortion. That is what happens when you have a few large insurers that dominate the industry. We are all tainted by that association.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the Stupak amendment is great. It’s great precisely because it does not keep the status quo, but pushes the insurance industry in pro-life direction. But this is far bigger than healthcare reform. To me, this is the great lesson of this peculiar debate. Shouldn’t we start applying pressure on the private insurers directly? Are there any grassroots campaigns out there to boycott offending insurers – or will be pro-life movement continue to focus only on “socialized” medicine?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In