File this under “Not a War on Women”. From the Detroit Free Press: “A controversial initiative requiring women to buy additional insurance if they want abortion coverage in their health insurance plans passed the Legislature Wednesday afternoon and will take effect 90 days after lawmakers adjourn for the year.” If signed into law, women would have to purchase a rider if they believe they will possibly have an abortion in the future.
Liberals and activists alike are up in arms over the recent legislation. Democrats believe it’s an issue that should be put forth to the voters to decide and claim Right to Life went “way too far”. I am somewhat surprised to see a measure such as this come out of a state like Michigan but it seems to be a trending perspective for conservatives and religious activists who adamantly prefer not be on the hook for abortions through new ACA regulations. The argument is that one cannot know if they could encounter a horrible experience, such as a rape or incest, that would, based on their argument, require coverage. A simple response would be that, just as they exist today, women have options for such circumstances.
From my perspective, this doesn’t seem like too big of an issue. You pay extra for dental, chiropractic and women (prior to the ACA) had different coverage parameters than men based on needs. It’s also a true political divide. Those who are pro-life need not purchase the rider and those who are pro-choice will have the opportunity to purchase the plan, or pay out of pocket. I can’t help but giggle a tad as this type of legislation gives liberals a taste of their own medicine. They will now purchase a rider on the premise that they may or may not use the option. It’s kind of like men paying for pregnancy coverage under new ACA guidelines. Or group insurance plans used to “balance” the good and bad.
We cannot plan for everything in life. Sometimes our deductibles are too high when an emergency arises or we didn’t purchase dental insurance the year you need two root canals. The reality is that health insurance cannot, and never will, be one size fits all. Additional “opt-in’s” are a better way to ensure coverage and cost is catered to the person. It also appears to offer a glimmer of hope for businesses that will be required to offer health benefits but don’t want to finance things of this nature, since it would be a premium” (for lack of a better word) package. Paging Hobby Lobby.