Ezra Klein points to the class implications of the Stupak amendment, in that it ignores the vast employer-sponsored insurance subsidies:
But as Rep. Jim Cooper points out in the interview below, the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak’s amendment. It’s the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free.
That money, however, subsidizes the insurance of 157 million Americans, many of them quite affluent. Imagine if Stupak had attempted to expand his amendment to their coverage.
Of course, Ezra and I agree that we’d like to stop having the government subsidize employer coverage. This would at first have no impact on abortion coverage because there would be no subsidy, but employers would be less inclined to cover and more people would poor into the exchange where abortion would be covered. I read another comment about the Stupek amendment where the Democrats would accomplish their secret goal of single-payer through the public option and actually thus outlaw abortion.
One thing that is frustrating in this debate is that we seem to fall into a pattern of thinking that all coverage must take place in the basic health plan. But looking comparatively, this is certainly not true. There are many countries who define their basic plan as consisting of vital benefits a, b and c which are then supplemented by private plans for covering x, y and z. In France, about 80-90% of the public owns a supplemental policy. Canada has significant supplemental plan ownership. And because the major things are part of the basic plan, these supplemental plans are not expensive.
As I said yesterday, what is and is not considered part of the basic plan is something that would ultimately be determined by the political process (not that this is necessarily ideal). It is entirely reasonable to feel that elective abortion should not be part of that basic plan. There are plenty of ways to make abortion affordable and accessible without federal funding. Instead of fighting tooth and nail against public opinion, pro-choice advocates would be better off being creative to work around these symbolic obstacles.
