Reply
Mon 23 Jul, 2007 05:10 am
We already have universal health care covering abortions. Some 40 years ago this country decided that freely available abortion was more acceptable than Monday morning emergency wards overflowing with young girls butchered by weekend backyard surgeons. A few politicians have attempted to make it an election issue, and have failed. Choice is here to stay.
Errr..... And if you're paying your private insurance premium, and your insurance pays if somebody else has an abortion - doesn't the exactly same argument apply? That your money will be used for an abortion, even if your a staunch pro-lifer?
And I totally don't understand the bit about "I thought the point of the "pro-choice" movement was just that -- choice." Uhm. Yes? I mean, it wouldn't be choice if somebody was forced to get an abortion, I guess. But that's not the case. You would merely have an insurance cover the procedure.
This argument doesn't seem to be very well thought-out.
(Btw, does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' "universal health care" cover abortions?)
Wilso wrote:We already have universal health care covering abortions. Some 40 years ago this country decided that freely available abortion was more acceptable than Monday morning emergency wards overflowing with young girls butchered by weekend backyard surgeons. A few politicians have attempted to make it an election issue, and have failed. Choice is here to stay.
What about drug-induced abortion with readily medications readily avaliable at the local pharmacy?
old europe wrote:Errr..... And if you're paying your private insurance premium, and your insurance pays if somebody else has an abortion - doesn't the exactly same argument apply? That your money will be used for an abortion, even if your a staunch pro-lifer?
And I totally don't understand the bit about "I thought the point of the "pro-choice" movement was just that -- choice." Uhm. Yes? I mean, it wouldn't be choice if somebody was forced to get an abortion, I guess. But that's not the case. You would merely have an insurance cover the procedure.
This argument doesn't seem to be very well thought-out.
(Btw, does the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' "universal health care" cover abortions?)
I've never had an abortion, so from personal experience I can't comment. I know that my insurance ( BC/BS ) will pay for therapeutic abortions so I would assume that Mitt Romney's Universal Care Plan for the Commonwealth also covers
therapeutic abortions.
"Pro-Choice" has nothing to do with therapeutic abortion, as the latter is performed to safeguard the pregnant woman's health and life.
Miller wrote:I've never had an abortion, so from personal experience I can't comment.
Okay. (I've never had an abortion either.)
Miller wrote:I know that my insurance ( BC/BS ) will pay for therapeutic abortions so I would assume that Mitt Romney's Universal Care Plan for the Commonwealth also covers
therapeutic abortions.
Interesting. So do you, personally, support or oppose that?
I support the performance of therapeutic abortions...abortions that are critical ( as determined by medical professionals ) to a pregnant woman's health and life.
Miller wrote:I support the performance of therapeutic abortions...abortions that are critical ( as determined by medical professionals ) to a pregnant woman's health and life.
Understood.
However, I would assume that if you institute a universal health care system, and if you make it mandatory for all citizens to pay into that system, that this system would be requested to perform all the procedures that are a) approved and b) legal. It would seem that abortions in general are in no way experimental or not approved if they can be performed as therapeutic abortions. It would also seem that abortions are legal in the United States. To me at least, that would lead to the conclusion that any universal health care system instituted in the United States, including the Massachusetts one, would be required to pay for any kind of abortion.
Beside hat, I think Miss Anderson, the author of that report ...
Quote:Miss Andersen earned a bachelor's degree in journalism and secondary English education at Indiana University. She interned through the National Journalism Center for the editorial page of The Washington Examiner newspaper before joining the Human Events team in March 2007.
She wrote for the Indiana Daily Student, Indiana University's daily newspaper. She also did publicity for Campus Crusade for Christ on her college campus. During college, Miss Andersen spent a summer in Mozambique, Africa helping to build the World AIDS Children's Orphanage with Teen Missions International, Inc. She has traveled to India, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Malawi in her experiences abroad.
Miss Andersen previously worked at the famous Kiawah Island Golf Resort in Kiawah Island, South Carolina before re-locating to Washington, D.C.
... should update her knowledge about 'universal healthcare a bit.
Or do you have to pay for your private health insurance AND the "universal healhcare" in Mass., Miller?
So, where's the cries of racism?
Miller wrote:Wilso wrote:We already have universal health care covering abortions. Some 40 years ago this country decided that freely available abortion was more acceptable than Monday morning emergency wards overflowing with young girls butchered by weekend backyard surgeons. A few politicians have attempted to make it an election issue, and have failed. Choice is here to stay.
What about drug-induced abortion with readily medications readily avaliable at the local pharmacy?
No. Several groups are pushing for the drug to be available. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.
cjhsa wrote:So, where's the cries of racism?
Nowhere. We're actually having an on-topic discussion. Does that bother you?
If the plan Edwards is pushing will cover abortions,will it go the other way also?
I dont have children,because of a low sperm count (sorry if mentioning that bothers some people).
Now,my GF and I want children,so will Edwards plan cover us going to a doctor for help having children?
Will it cover us having a "test tube baby"?
So far,no insurance plan covers that.
If abortion is covered,so should all other reproductive services.
Well, it's paid here in Germany (in most cases, at least, and there's no need to be married) by the health funds.
But better ask Miller, since she's the one with the special knowledge about Universal Healthcare here.
(Private insurances here pay for that, of course, as well. Even such cases, which might not be covered by our compulsary insurances.)
Just checked it: some compulsary health insurances only pay 50% and you must be married (there are a couple where it is both).
Private insurances pay it comletely 100% - some offer even more benefits (= therapies), and you mustn't be married.
I think they have changed things around a bit - at least in regards to the statutory health insurance.
For example, you have to be older than 25 years, but younger than 40 (woman) or 50 (men). You also have to be married. And prior methods of therapy (hormone therapy etc.) have to have been without success, whereas in-vitro fertilisation has to have a certain likelihood of succeeding.
The statutory health insurance will pay for at least 50 percent of the costs.
That said, Germany also has stricter regulations in regard to abortions. Apart from criminogene (rape etc.) or medical indications for a therapeutic abortion, abortions are technically illegal. The exception is if a pregnant woman has an attestation that she had counselling (termed Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung, Pregnancy Conflict Counselling - official counselling places can issue a Counselling Attestation) and she is in the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy (the twelve weeks also apply in case of a criminogene indication).
All cases of legal abortions are paid for by the statutory health insurance.
old europe wrote:I think they have changed things around a bit - at least in regards to the statutory health insurance.
For example, you have to be older than 25 years, but younger than 40 (woman) or 50 (men). You also have to be married. And prior methods of therapy (hormone therapy etc.) have to have been without success, whereas in-vitro fertilisation has to have a certain likelihood of succeeding.
The statutory health insurance will pay for at least 50 percent of the costs.
Thanks - I must admit I read to fast over the pages.
Miller is trying to take money out of my pocket to pay for her religious beliefs.
Paying for abortions is a hell of a lot less expensive than paying for unwanted pregnancies. A pro-life stance costs lots of taxpayer money to pay for children who are unwanted.
This is an idiotic thread.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace