Note first that she says clearly that abortion coverage must be paid for by the insured with the insured's own money. Then she talks about what she calls an accounting procedure which is language which raises questions, of course. But note second that the context of her statement is obviously to reassure the pro-choice (what we prefer to call pro-abortion) crowd. Any who has a rudimentary understanding of the insurance business knows that a set-aside on the premiums paid on every policy that goes into a common pool is what can be called a reserve fund. This is the fund from which the insurance company pays claims. The insurance company hopes the fund is big enough to pay all claims and have some left over for profit. If you are a man and have only major medical, some part of that portion of your premium may, if one could track the dollars, end up paying maternity claims for some woman in the same insurance pool. Now the portion of her coverage that goes to the reserve is based on the risk of covering her for that just as the reserve portion of that guy's premium was based on the risk they assign to his coverage. That doesn't mean he is paying for her maternity bills. All claims are paid from the reserve fund. It would make no sense to try to make an accounting of premium vs claims for each insured. Some use more than they paid and some, probably most, use less. Besides, if the individual wanting abortion coverage pays the premium for that, the rest of us in that pool don't have to pay it. It's just that although the reserve portion of each insured's premiums are based on the risk the insurer figures for that coverage, the reserve pool intermingles it all. That does not mean everyone pays for abortions. Worrying about that is like worrying that an abortion doctor may be driving on some interstate highway my tax dollars paid for.I think the lady is trying to pull one on the pro-abortion crowd and some conservative group misinterpreted it."The big step forward" is allowing privately funded abortion coverage in the insurance pools that provide coverage subsidized by federal funds. The Senate bill allows states to opt out of this and have no abortion coverage allowed in these pools, just like the House version stands now for all such pools -- no abortion coverage can be in any such pools. I like the House version better, but the Senate bill does prevent premiums for abortion coverage from being paid with federal funds, our tax dollars. We are not now nor will we be with either bills so far, all paying for abortion.
Post a Comment