Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Universal Health Care Seeks To Exclude Abortion...

Health Care Abortion Exclusion 2009

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:41 PM

^ Since you find it so outrageous that the newly available subsidized insurance might not cover abortion, perhaps in the event that this provision is adopted you'd prefer that the health insurance 'reform bill' fail to become law?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#22 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:43 PM

In all honesty - if it brought about the deaths of women who could not get medically needed abortions - hell yes!
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#23 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:52 PM

Wait, wait, wait. Who's going to be losing their health insurance that covers abortions because of this provision? That's the part I don't understand.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#24 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:55 PM

Are you asking me? about this?

Quote

Who's going to be losing their health insurance that covers abortions because of this provision? That's the part I don't understand

I've not been discussing that portion of this Palisade. Sorry if I made you think so.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#25 Niki Jane

Niki Jane

    fantastic!

  • Islander
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:58 PM

View PostShalamar, on Jul 8 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

I've got no problem with the most likely average being around $600 - but seriously this really does sound like some politicians using this as part of an anti abortion issue.

I am outraged at the thought of there being no exceptions.

Ditto, Shal. I'm right there with you on the outrage.

Basically, yes, people could stay on their private insurance... BUT, it looks as though this is being marketed as a solution to those in the low income bracket or those who have lost their jobs in these economic times. In which case, private insurance wouldn't be a problem for them. And statistically speaking, those in the lowest income brackets are the ones in need of contraceptive/abortive support. From what I'm reading, they are also suggesting that birth control should not be covered either. And as everyone knows, condoms are not 100%. Not to mention, why should a married couple in a monogamous relationship have to use condoms if they don't want to?

Also, I find one fault in the argument that everyone should be able to spare the $500 to several thousand that an abortion can cost. True, it would be nice if everyone could have a huge savings built up. But, when you're struggling as it is, that's not always possible. My husband and I both work at fairly decent jobs. He's in the pharmacy at a local hospital and I'm an office administrator. Still, we only have about $200 in our savings account and we have had to scrap to have that much. We are both in school, so, of course that's where a could chunk of our money goes each semester. Regardless, for people in the lower income bracket, or those laid off from their jobs (which is who this plan seems to be targeting) it's not all that easy to save money.  You put a little bit away and then your car breaks down. You have to dip into your savings. Or, some are slowly watching their savings dwindle away while they search for a decent job. Either way, putting money aside sounds like an easy solution, but in the real world, it's anything but.

Not to mention, I'm sure, PLANS for an abortion. No one plans to get pregnant with a child they aren't prepared to raise, women don't PLAN to get raped, and women trying to get pregnant aren't PLANNING to have a dangerous and life threatening pregnancy that requires an abortion to save the mother's life. Sure, it would be nice if we could all have a nice chunk of cash stashed away for a "rainy day" but the reality is the people this program is targeting aren't likely to be able to do that. And they are the ones that usually need it most.

#26 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:03 PM

View PostShalamar, on Jul 8 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

Are you asking me? about this?

Quote

Who's going to be losing their health insurance that covers abortions because of this provision? That's the part I don't understand

I've not been discussing that portion of this Palisade. Sorry if I made you think so.

^ Who is it that you think will lose the ability to get an abortion because of this provision?

Do those people have the ability to get an abortion now? If not, how is this provision bringing about deaths that wouldn't have happened anyway?

Also, hospitals in the U.S. are required to administer emergency medical care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, and as far as I know, this emergency care would extend to abortions.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#27 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:08 PM

Niki Jane, I've read your post. I don't see how this is provoking such outrage. If someone offered to pay a large part of my way subject to certain provisions, I'd either gratefully accept, or if I thought I was better off paying my own way to avoid those provisions, I'd politely decline. In neither case have I been harmed by the offer of assistance.

Edited by Palisade, 08 July 2009 - 09:09 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#28 Niki Jane

Niki Jane

    fantastic!

  • Islander
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:09 PM

View PostPalisade, on Jul 8 2009, 10:03 PM, said:

Also, hospitals in the U.S. are required to administer emergency medical care regardless of the patient's ability to pay, and as far as I know, this emergency care would extend to abortions.

But then, we have the tricky territory of determining an "emergency". Is the rape victim an emergency? Is the mother with the special needs fetus who knows she's not emotionally or financially ready to take care of such a challenging child an emergency? Is the mother who is so strung out on drugs that there is no way she'll give birth to a healthy child an emergency? Are the women who face being single mothers on a salary hardly enough to feed themselves an emergency?


Is a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body an emergency?

#29 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:13 PM

^ It's an emergency if it's something they'd rush you to the emergency room for.

Although from what I hear, some places are really lax and basically offer up their emergency rooms as free clinics.

Edited by Palisade, 08 July 2009 - 09:13 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:13 PM

Well isn't there a difference between the State not prohibiting abortion and it saying that it's not going to foot the bill?  Is abortion covered under medicare for example?
Posted Image

#31 Niki Jane

Niki Jane

    fantastic!

  • Islander
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:15 PM

View PostPalisade, on Jul 8 2009, 10:08 PM, said:

Niki Jane, I've read your post. I don't see how this is provoking such outrage. If someone offered to pay a large part of my way subject to certain provisions, I'd either gratefully accept, or if I thought I was better off paying my own way to avoid those provisions, I'd politely decline. In neither case have I been harmed by the offer of assistance.

I will admit, most of my outrage stems from the government telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body based on outdated religious beliefs or some supposed moral high ground.

However, what if you don't have the option to "politely decline"? You seem to be speaking from the view point of someone who is relatively well off, instead of the view point of the people this health care is geared towards. Those who are impoverished and don't have the option of purchasing their own health care. It's necessary, because what if they are in an accident, what if they are injured or fall ill? A lot of hospitals don't even want to take someone with out health care. At least, not in my area they don't. There are very few free clinics around here.

But still, the main core of my outrage is... who is to tell a woman she can't practice safe sex by taking birth control? She can't chose whether or not to carry a child to term for personal or financial reasons? Or maybe, why are the conservatives trying to use something that is supposed to "help" the impoverished to push forward their misogynist agenda of taking a woman's choice regarding her own body?

#32 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:40 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Jul 8 2009, 08:13 PM, said:

Well isn't there a difference between the State not prohibiting abortion and it saying that it's not going to foot the bill?
I would say, "yes."

Quote

Is abortion covered under medicare for example?
According to this link, Medicare pays for "some or all of the cost" for abortions. I would caution though that as far as I know, Medicare varies from state to state. But I don't know much about Medicare except its dire fiscal situation and that I've heard a lot of horror stories about the red tape it imposes.



Niki Jane said:

I will admit, most of my outrage stems from the government telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body based on outdated religious beliefs or some supposed moral high ground.
Government isn't telling women what she can and can't do with her body. If the bill passes, it's saying that if you want the government to pay part of your health insurance premiums, you have to choose a plan that doesn't cover abortions.

Quote

However, what if you don't have the option to "politely decline"?
Then, in the case at hand, my only choice would be to accept and find some other way to get what my benefactor is unwilling to pay for.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#33 Aric

Aric

    Ar1ARX

  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:13 AM

I think it's still very early in the process, with no guarantee this proposal will ever be included in the bill.  I agree this proposal could have alarming consequences, so I would think now is the time to organise and rally against this proposal.  It's going to be tricky enough getting this bill through anyway, and if Obama and the Democratic leadership hear loud and clear that this is a proposal that is drawing a great deal of attention and controversy, it may push Obama to actively push back against this proposal to ensure it doesn't derail his greater objective of getting the legislation passed.  I think anti-abortion Congressmen could offer several important concessions to both Obama and the Democratic leadership to ensure passage of this bill, and perhaps others, like cap and trade, in order to secure this proposal's place in the bill.  I don't know Obama and the Democratic leadership's position on abortion, but if it's not strong, they may be willing to bargain.  A strong public backlash against the idea of the proposal, now, would go a long way to ensuring they're not going to be tempted.

I confess to not understand how such legislation is permissible.  Would it actually stand up to judicial scrutiny?  And there are a lot of logistics that have to be detailed, namely how exactly is the insurer supposed to determine who is and who isn't getting federal subsidies?  I suppose a check box can be added to an insurance form, but what about verification?  Is the government supposed to compile a list of all people getting subsidies and have insurers send them their clients list to verify whoever's getting subsidies doesn't have insurance that includes abortion coverage?  It would be easier to monitor from the public insurance side, since they'd never cover an abortion, but aren't there like hundreds of insurers, presumably millions of people eligible for this subsidy?  I could be wrong, but I sense an administrative headache to try to establish this.  This might, given some more imagination that I gave it, be an area to attack the proposal, perhaps on legal, privacy, logistical, etc, grounds.

While I don't for a second doubt the sincerity of conviction of those Congressmen who are anti-abortion and don't want federal funds to be contributing to it, I think the administration and the Democratic leadership should make it clear that they will not tolerate trying to link something as complex and divisive as abortion onto something as important and necessary as health care reform.  If the leadership has to offer concessions in other areas (though I'll admit to not being able to think of any, the abortion debate in my mind tends to be a zero-sum game, one side's loss is the other's gain, with no mutually satisfactory win-win scenario possible), the article indicated Pelosi was negotiating already, then it needs to be pursued with a strong sense of urgency, and perhaps even leveraging the President's influence if necessary.  I think the other possible method to attack this is to move on the offensive, by having Obama say directly that he'll never sign a bill with that proposal included, and making it clear that dragging in the abortion issue is the last ditch action of health care reform obstructionists, who are threatening to derail and destroy the entire reform bill, and draw in broad public support against the measure.  Hopefully the former approach will work, but they definitely need to be ready for the latter, if it comes to that.

Aric

#34 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:23 AM

^ I'd think that the way the federal government would handle the subsidies is that they'd send their portion of the insurance premiums and the insuree would send his her portion of the insurance premiums. I don't see why it would be any more difficult for the health insurance company to offer a version of the health insurance with abortion coverage and another without it than it is for State Farm to do the same for me with car rental coverage for in case I get into an accident. All I have to do to drop the car rental insurance option is call them up, and next time my policy comes up for renewal I pay them $15 less, and I no longer get that coverage.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#35 Aric

Aric

    Ar1ARX

  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:42 AM

Good point, Palisade, I didn't think that the government would actually pay an insurer directly, though.  If that's possible, and I don't know how it works in the US, then agreed, it wouldn't be much of an issue at all, then.

Aric

#36 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:00 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on Jul 9 2009, 02:13 AM, said:

Well isn't there a difference between the State not prohibiting abortion and it saying that it's not going to foot the bill?  Is abortion covered under medicare for example?

Ummmmmm - don't you have to be 65 to get Medicare???  How many 65-year-old women get pregnant?  

Medicaid, that's another matter...
Cats will never be extinct!

#37 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:05 AM

^ I think dependents of someone who has Medicare might also be covered by Medicare. I'm not sure about that though.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#38 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:48 AM

View PostThemis, on Jul 9 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

View PostBad Wolf, on Jul 9 2009, 02:13 AM, said:

Well isn't there a difference between the State not prohibiting abortion and it saying that it's not going to foot the bill?  Is abortion covered under medicare for example?

Ummmmmm - don't you have to be 65 to get Medicare???  How many 65-year-old women get pregnant?  

Medicaid, that's another matter...

Okay medicaid.

Or COBRA.

Or any city or state subsidized health care.

Do they include government paid abortions?

I'm suspecting that the answer is no.
Posted Image

#39 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:58 AM

View PostBad Wolf, on Jul 9 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

View PostThemis, on Jul 9 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

View PostBad Wolf, on Jul 9 2009, 02:13 AM, said:

Well isn't there a difference between the State not prohibiting abortion and it saying that it's not going to foot the bill?  Is abortion covered under medicare for example?

Ummmmmm - don't you have to be 65 to get Medicare???  How many 65-year-old women get pregnant?  

Medicaid, that's another matter...

Okay medicaid.

Or COBRA.

Or any city or state subsidized health care.

Do they include government paid abortions?

I'm suspecting that the answer is no.

Well, COBRA just enables someone who is covered by an insurance policy through work to continue that same coverage but they pay the premiums (except there was something in the stimulus bill about the employer paying part) so it would be whatever was covered when you were working.  But I would hope they would pay for it at least in cases where the mother's health was in danger.  For other reasons, maybe not.
Cats will never be extinct!

#40 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:01 AM

Still too angry to marshal my thoughts in this matter, but I will struggle to get this one out: I know too many horror stories of folks who died waiting months for treatment to so much as consider allowing decisions about abortion to be made by government agencies or by private health care organizations.  Plus, there is an obvious expiration date on pregnancy.  If your life is endangered by your pregnancy and you find this out after the first trimester and it takes six months for someone to make a decision, you're already dead.  If it takes four months and you get the obligatory denial and must spend another four months in appeal, you're already dead.  In my experience of government agencies, there are at least two obligatory denials before you get to the person who is allowed to consider making a decision in your favor.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health Care, Abortion Exclusion, 2009

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users