abortion insurance

[lemur]

Since the political campaign to stop public funding for abortion is strengthening, I wonder if private initiatives will emerge to allow people to insure themselves against unwanted pregnancy. If such abortion-insurance would emerge, how would you expect it to be funded and regulated? E.g. do you think that anyone who wanted to could sign up for unlimited abortions for a fixed fee or would it be like auto insurance where your premiums increase due to accidents and tickets? Also, would you expect men to contribute to such insurance, for example, and if so what would their incentive be? Would women restrict themselves to have sex with men whose abortion-insurance payments were up-to-date?

 

Sorry if I have somehow presented this topic in an offensive way. I'm just trying to raise discussion about whether voluntary semi-public funding of abortion is possible and, if so, how would it work?

[Marat]

Insurance usually protects against risks which the insured person cannot avoid, like accidents or illness. But in the case of abortion, the problem is that the procedure is elective, so people with insurance might have a motivation just to have as many abortions as they liked an pump money out of their insurers. In the Soviet Union abortion used to be the preferred method of birth control, so the insurers could be overwhelmed. It would be difficult for insurers to determine the right price to charge for their policies, since the provision of insurance might itself increase abortions.

[lemur]

Insurance usually protects against risks which the insured person cannot avoid, like accidents or illness. But in the case of abortion, the problem is that the procedure is elective, so people with insurance might have a motivation just to have as many abortions as they liked an pump money out of their insurers. In the Soviet Union abortion used to be the preferred method of birth control, so the insurers could be overwhelmed. It would be difficult for insurers to determine the right price to charge for their policies, since the provision of insurance might itself increase abortions.

That's why I brought up the idea of premium-increases with greater use, i.e. like when you get tickets and have accidents your car insurance premiums go up. This would reward people for using alternative forms of birth control. This might be an example of the free market doing a better job of governing abortion than government can by promoting better self-governance. What would REALLY work is if men would be able to register their genetic fingerprints and allow them to be compared with aborted fetuses to credit them with "good driving records." This would give men an incentive to prevent unwanted pregnancy since their premiums would go up with each fetus aborted with their genes.

[swansont]

Since the political campaign to stop public funding for abortion is strengthening,

 

What public funding of abortions currently exists?

[lemur]

What public funding of abortions currently exists?

I don't know that it does. I'm just citing the political discourse that is currently construing budget-cuts against planned parenthood as abortion-related. There's also some governor, I heard, that is trying to make a political statement out of cutting funding for abortion. I wouldn't presume to be able to dissect the realities going on behind the public discourse, so I just think about the issues raises and try to come up with creative thoughts to move the discussion along. Thus, if many people don't want to contribute to abortion-funding in any way, the logical next step would be to ask how it would work for abortion-supporters to fund their own sub-culture in the form of private insurance and how it would work if they did.

 

 

 

[swansont]

I don't know that it does. I'm just citing the political discourse that is currently construing budget-cuts against planned parenthood as abortion-related. There's also some governor, I heard, that is trying to make a political statement out of cutting funding for abortion. I wouldn't presume to be able to dissect the realities going on behind the public discourse, so I just think about the issues raises and try to come up with creative thoughts to move the discussion along. Thus, if many people don't want to contribute to abortion-funding in any way, the logical next step would be to ask how it would work for abortion-supporters to fund their own sub-culture in the form of private insurance and how it would work if they did.

 

So the OP presupposes that it's true — if there is no widespread public funding already, then any "outcry" is manufactured political distraction, and there is no actual need for a change in the insurance system, since there would be no demand that it would have to absorb, i.e. no new problem is created.

 

We already know that federal money cannot be used to fund abortions.

[lemur]

So the OP presupposes that it's true — if there is no widespread public funding already, then any "outcry" is manufactured political distraction, and there is no actual need for a change in the insurance system, since there would be no demand that it would have to absorb, i.e. no new problem is created.

 

We already know that federal money cannot be used to fund abortions.

What would you do about any public concern that public funding is being indirectly used to fund abortions then? What you seem to basically be saying is that if something's illegal and people say they aren't doing it then they're not. But can you honestly say you're not taking that position because you are in favor of shielding abortion from budget-cuts? I don't particularly care either way, which is why I'm just saying that if the public is so concerned with preventing public money from funding abortion in any way, isn't there just a way to ensure its funding occurs 100% privately and be done with the discussion?

[swansont]

What would you do about any public concern that public funding is being indirectly used to fund abortions then? What you seem to basically be saying is that if something's illegal and people say they aren't doing it then they're not. But can you honestly say you're not taking that position because you are in favor of shielding abortion from budget-cuts? I don't particularly care either way, which is why I'm just saying that if the public is so concerned with preventing public money from funding abortion in any way, isn't there just a way to ensure its funding occurs 100% privately and be done with the discussion?

 

There's already a law in place regarding federal money. Why is there a need for another one? If people were breaking one law, why wouldn't they break a second one? Is that the solution to other crimes, like murder or theft — pass a law making it reeeaaaalllly illegal, and then it will stop?

 

Regardless, it's still up to you to show that the problem exists; innuendo won't cut it. Is there evidence that people are breaking this law? We already had a thread discussing planned parenthood, so it's well-established that they get more than enough in private contributions/fees to cover abortions.

 

Federal money not being used for abortions is true regardless of my motivations. There is no budget to cut.

[lemur]

There's already a law in place regarding federal money. Why is there a need for another one? If people were breaking one law, why wouldn't they break a second one? Is that the solution to other crimes, like murder or theft — pass a law making it reeeaaaalllly illegal, and then it will stop?

 

Regardless, it's still up to you to show that the problem exists; innuendo won't cut it. Is there evidence that people are breaking this law? We already had a thread discussing planned parenthood, so it's well-established that they get more than enough in private contributions/fees to cover abortions.

 

Federal money not being used for abortions is true regardless of my motivations. There is no budget to cut.

If I would question the premise of a thread like this, I would be getting harassed about it by administrators. I didn't start this thread to make any claims about whether or how public funding is going to abortion or not. All I was trying to discuss was whether private funding of abortion was a good idea and, if so, how it would work. I'd like to stick to questions such as how poor people would gain equal access to abortion and whether greater usage could/should be cause for raising premiums and that kind of issues. In fact, even if no public funding IS going to support abortion, what would be wrong with discussing the use of (private) insurance to fund it?

 

edit: oh, I forgot to reiterate the issue of male contributions to funding if privatized. E.g. allowing genetic testing of fetal-material to offer lower premiums to men who contribute to less abortions.

Edited April 30, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

In fact, even if no public funding IS going to support abortion, what would be wrong with discussing the use of (private) insurance to fund it?

 

Even this assumes that private insurance is not paying for abortions. Have you shown this to be the case?

[lemur]

Even this assumes that private insurance is not paying for abortions. Have you shown this to be the case?

I suppose you're right about this too, but it is probably just included with any number of other services and treatments. I'm really focussed on abortion-funding purely for abortion, based on the popular assumption in politics that people want to fund abortions for others based on whether they are morally opposed to or supportive of its use as a last resort for unwanted pregnancy. I don't think this popular assumption is necessarily true for everyone, btw. There may be many people who don't want to take an absolute stance against abortion but they also don't want to rule it out for themselves or others as an option. They may have reasons like overpopulation, poverty, and unfit-parenting (and possibly eugenics) to support broad public access to abortion; yet they may not like to think of themselves as promoting it by making it available. Either way, my point was to take the popular framework that people do or don't want to socially fund abortion based on their morality and politics and translate that into the idea of having insurance devoted entirely to funding and regulating the cost of abortion. I've posted various possibilities for specific discussion issues several time, but you keep attacking the whole basis for the premise. If I would do that on a thread, I would get criticized and warned by administrators.

[swansont]

I've posted various possibilities for specific discussion issues several time, but you keep attacking the whole basis for the premise. If I would do that on a thread, I would get criticized and warned by administrators.

 

It's arguably a false premise.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand the reasons for the criticism you get.

[lemur]

It's arguably a false premise.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand the reasons for the criticism you get.

I get criticized for derailing threads when I address the premise, or at least I have.

 

btw, the thing you fail to address is why you attack the very possibility of discussing abortion funding separate from other forms of medical insurance. Something must bother you about the idea so much that you keep attacking the premise.

Edited May 1, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

I get criticized for derailing threads when I address the premise, or at least I have.

 

btw, the thing you fail to address is why you attack the very possibility of discussing abortion funding separate from other forms of medical insurance. Something must bother you about the idea so much that you keep attacking the premise.

 

I attack the premise because it appears to be false. That's what bothers me. You can't have an honest discussion based on a false premise. It's a tactic that forces people to defend or support a position that isn't real.

[lemur]

I attack the premise because it appears to be false. That's what bothers me. You can't have an honest discussion based on a false premise. It's a tactic that forces people to defend or support a position that isn't real.

I know what you mean. It is a tactic of political realism, like when people accuse a political candidate of wanting to make education worse by cutting its funding and that propagates the assumption that the only way to make education better is by putting more money into it.

 

I'm not trying to do that with this thread. All I was doing is proposing the idea of direct insurance for abortion. The only problem with it, I think, is that it could be stigmatizing if abortion wasn't just part of a larger bundle of services, sort of like the way prostitution is stigmatizing when it's not done as part of an larger relationship that includes non-sexual activities as well. Still, as easily as we could discuss legalizing prostitution and creating insurance for that (e.g. like unemployment insurance for relationship-breakups, divorce, etc.), we can also discuss abortion insurance, whether men would buy into it and why, whether premiums would be lower for people who utilized the insurance less, and whether the poor would get discounted rates, whether charitable people would donate money for poor people to get abortions and what their interests might be in doing so, etc.

Edited May 1, 2011 by lemur

[Dak]

Seems pretty clear-cut to me:

 

Since the political campaign to stop public funding for abortion is strengthening, I wonder if private initiatives will emerge to allow people to insure themselves against unwanted pregnancy.

 

Swansont's saying: 'it is already the case that public funding of abortion is disallowed; plus, is it not already the case that private insurance for abortions exists?'.

 

If so, then there's no need to speculate, as what you're proposing would already be the case.

 

Instead, if anyone happens to know how private abortion-insurance works? Just like other medical insurance?

 

Guess: it probably costs more if you're not on the pill to represent the increased risk of needing an abortion, and I dunno how it'd work for men?

 

and whether the poor would get discounted rates

 

presumably, if public funding of abortions is disallowed, the poor don't currently have federal (state?) subsidized abortions. But I dunno.