Should Abortions be Part of 'Healthcare'?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]milod wrote:
First, NO, none of my private insurance dollars go to fund abortion.

Who is your insurer? Did you specifically choose a pro-life policy that doesn’t cover any abortions even to protect the health of the mother? Because otherwise, yes you are. That’s the point of insurance, actually. Everyone pays money into a common risk pool because no one can predict who will need to take money out, or when.

My workplace only offers a single insurance provider - Anthem Blue Cross of California - which most certainly does cover abortions. My family is not eligible for private health insurance other than major medical coverage. So the government plan would at least give me the option of not paying for abortions with my premium dollars, which is an option that I do not have today.

Even in a state like texas there are approximately 4300 abortions to every execution.

Do you have principles or not? Forcing pro-life people who oppose capital punishment to pay for a few murders is OK, but forcing anti-abortion people to pay for abortions is not - because of the number of murders involved?[/quote]

My point being, the people having abortions are paying their fair share into the system giving them that ability. They are providing the means to their own abortion using a company I can freely not pay anything to.

Yes, you do have option for the sole fact that the industry has private options. The ONLY way choice can be removed is to move to a public option. You are saying a public option gives you a monetary choice about what you can morally support when itâ??s the exact opposite. Even if you were 100% stuck with your insurer through your employer, you have much more influence on your employer than on the federal government.

So to you, there is no difference in an individual murder and genocide… okay. However, aside from that, you arenâ??t addressing the blaring moral differences.

The morals in question aren’t even remote. By your logic I shouldnâ??t be force to incarcerate people if I donâ??t believe in it.

Last, Iâ??m wondering how you came under the impression that a public option wonâ??t also deny coverage options to your family. It couldnâ??t be more untrue. The only difference being that they take your money either way with 0 options.

22

[quote]Bondslave wrote:
Umm hell no…

Are they really putting that in the healthcare bill?[/quote]

See for yourself:

search for Planned Parenthood…Always the abortion secret code…

23

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Is anyone actually surprised, given the outcome of recent elections, that this would be in the healthcare bill?[/quote]

No surprise here. I am only surprised it wasn’t more all encompassing for all abortions for any reason. It is actually some what restricted…That’s a surprise. I counted on it being an abortion fest given this administration’s love of abortion.

24

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

If you can’t see the difference between capital punishment and abortion, there is no hop for you.

This is the point that normally I would say something about a collection of cells not qualifying as a human.

But I’ll let it go because your logic is clearly flawless. [/quote]

Go look up the human life cycle. It begins at zygote. A fertilized egg is human. It is alive. The only debate being where we draw the moral line of it having the rights of a “human being”. Scientifically a zygote is a living human. I get tired of that argument.

25

A) not if they are on medicaid.

B) again, who is your insurer? Are you actually using a policy that does not provide for abortions or is this some hypothetical insurance that you could get if you really cared?

That doesn’t even make any sense. The government is elected by popular vote and is at least partially answerable to the electorate. The only influence I have over my employer’s actions is to quit and go work somewhere else. I cannot go into business for myself in this case, because then I will lose my insurance coverage, which is the whole point of this argument.

I have tried to get private insurance in the past. I have been told, repeatedly, that no private insurer will cover my family at any price, except for major medical. Perhaps there is some insurer somewhere who would cover us on a PPO or HMO basis, but I could not find one after a lengthy and diligent search.

[quote]
So to you, there is no difference in an individual murder and genocide… okay. However, aside from that, you arenâ??t addressing the blaring moral differences.

The morals in question aren’t even remote. By your logic I shouldnâ??t be force to incarcerate people if I donâ??t believe in it.[/quote]

No, that’s your logic. I’m explaining to you that everyone is already paying taxes for things that they may not personally agree with. Tax dollars being used for abortions is not a new thing, and it isn’t even part of the current health care proposal. So what is the source of your outrage?

[quote]
Last, Iâ??m wondering how you came under the impression that a public option wonâ??t also deny coverage options to your family. It couldnâ??t be more untrue. The only difference being that they take your money either way with 0 options.[/quote]

Because a public option - like the Medicare system we already have - would be required to take all applicants, even if they have pre-existing conditions.

26

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

If you can’t see the difference between capital punishment and abortion, there is no hop for you.

This is the point that normally I would say something about a collection of cells not qualifying as a human.

But I’ll let it go because your logic is clearly flawless.

Go look up the human life cycle. It begins at zygote. A fertilized egg is human. It is alive. The only debate being where we draw the moral line of it having the rights of a “human being”. Scientifically a zygote is a living human. I get tired of that argument.[/quote]

They forget all about science when it disagrees with them.

27

[quote]John S. wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

If you can’t see the difference between capital punishment and abortion, there is no hop for you.

This is the point that normally I would say something about a collection of cells not qualifying as a human.

But I’ll let it go because your logic is clearly flawless.

Go look up the human life cycle. It begins at zygote. A fertilized egg is human. It is alive. The only debate being where we draw the moral line of it having the rights of a “human being”. Scientifically a zygote is a living human. I get tired of that argument.

They forget all about science when it disagrees with them.[/quote]

In order for a human to exist, it must have to start with zygote. If a zygote does not always turn human, then there would be an arguement.

28

[quote]milod wrote:
My point being, the people having abortions are paying their fair share into the system giving them that ability. They are providing the means to their own abortion using a company I can freely not pay anything to.

A) not if they are on medicaid.
[/quote]
I agree.

It is a company I choose to pay money to. You seem to sway back and forth between principal and real world situations. Principal was all you cared about when talking about the death penalty.

NO! absolutely not. Your employer and insurance company are much more answerable to you that the federal government. It is a much larger impact for a business to lose an employee or customer than a federal politician to lose a vote. And as I’ve stated over and over majority opinion doesn’t make something right. Popular opinion has done some horrible things.

Once again, I think you are fooling yourself if you think the government is going to offer more coverage.

Which is why I’m in favor of the government doing as little as possible.

And, apparently it is part of the proposal.

[quote]

Last, I’m wondering how you came under the impression that a public option won’t also deny coverage options to your family. It couldn’t be more untrue. The only difference being that they take your money either way with 0 options.

Because a public option - like the Medicare system we already have - would be required to take all applicants, even if they have pre-existing conditions.[/quote]

Yes, they are required to accept you. They ARE NOT required to cover any given procedure. A bureaucrat somewhere will get to decide what care you do AND don’t receive.

29

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

NO! absolutely not. Your employer and insurance company are much more answerable to you that the federal government. It is a much larger impact for a business to lose an employee or customer than a federal politician to lose a vote. And as I’ve stated over and over majority opinion doesn’t make something right. Popular opinion has done some horrible things.

[/quote]

Huh? I think my insurer would rather lose me as a customer than pay for my $200,000 brain cancer treatment and subsequent rehab.

30

OK, let me be clearer: I am personally pro-life and think that capital punishment is evil. However, this is only one issue among many for me, and does not trump all others when I am voting. In any event, my views on abortion and capital punishment are completely irrelevant to this thread, and I have not stated them before this post.

I am not making an argument on principle here. I am trying to show you that your argument, which you seem to be making on principle, is flawed. The argument you (and others) are presenting in this thread is that the current proposed health care reform should be defeated because it will require you to pay for abortions against your will. This argument is flawed on two counts:

  1. Almost everyone making this argument is already paying for both abortions either through taxes or insurance premiums or both. Many of the people making this argument are quite willing to force others to pay for other forms of killing (executions, pre-emptive wars), even if those taxpayers find them morally repugnant. Note that this is not an argument about the moral equivalence of the actions involved; it is an argument about using taxes to coerce people to fund activities that they do not morally support.

  2. The proposed plan does not involve paying for abortions with tax revenues. Under the Capps compromise, abortion services would be paid for using beneficiary premiums. Since you are not required to participate in a plan that offers abortion services, you can avoid having your dollars used to pay for those services.

And since I’m running out of different ways to explain these two simple facts, I’m done here.

As a final aside, yes I do support the current attempts at health care reform, and I would even prefer a single-payer system like they have in Canada or England to what we have now. Either of these systems would be better for me personally, given my family’s specific circumstances. No, I’m not going to discuss those circumstances further. Suffice it to say that these are not hypothetical scenarios that might happen to someone else. These are issues that I have personally experienced.

31

[quote]milod wrote:
OK, let me be clearer: I am personally pro-life and think that capital punishment is evil. However, this is only one issue among many for me, and does not trump all others when I am voting. In any event, my views on abortion and capital punishment are completely irrelevant to this thread, and I have not stated them before this post.

I am not making an argument on principle here. I am trying to show you that your argument, which you seem to be making on principle, is flawed. The argument you (and others) are presenting in this thread is that the current proposed health care reform should be defeated because it will require you to pay for abortions against your will. This argument is flawed on two counts:

  1. Almost everyone making this argument is already paying for both abortions either through taxes or insurance premiums or both. Many of the people making this argument are quite willing to force others to pay for other forms of killing (executions, pre-emptive wars), even if those taxpayers find them morally repugnant. Note that this is not an argument about the moral equivalence of the actions involved; it is an argument about using taxes to coerce people to fund activities that they do not morally support.

  2. The proposed plan does not involve paying for abortions with tax revenues. Under the Capps compromise, abortion services would be paid for using beneficiary premiums. Since you are not required to participate in a plan that offers abortion services, you can avoid having your dollars used to pay for those services.

And since I’m running out of different ways to explain these two simple facts, I’m done here.

As a final aside, yes I do support the current attempts at health care reform, and I would even prefer a single-payer system like they have in Canada or England to what we have now. Either of these systems would be better for me personally, given my family’s specific circumstances. No, I’m not going to discuss those circumstances further. Suffice it to say that these are not hypothetical scenarios that might happen to someone else. These are issues that I have personally experienced.[/quote]

I agree, it is a problem that current government pays for abortions. That doesn’t change the right or wrong of more government money going toward them. You are attempting justification by comparison (making right or wrong relative), which is essentially an admition of the absolute wrongness.

By your reasoning no one can have any objections to anything the government spends tax dollars on. They could start giving money to support spreading the HIV virus, and apparently because they already make you pay for the military, no one can have any objections. Think about what you are saying.

You’re second point I need to read up on.

Your last paragraph disgusts me. Voting on the government should be about what is right and wrong, not about how big a piece of the pie you can get.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson

Why do people keep thinking popular opinion determines right and wrong? Popular opinion doesn’t change innate human rights. That is why we are supposed to abide by rule of law, not rule of popular opinion.

I don’t care how many people voted for robbery and oppression. There are things a majority of opinions DOES NOT entitle you to. My wallet and my personal choices included.

32

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

NO! absolutely not. Your employer and insurance company are much more answerable to you that the federal government. It is a much larger impact for a business to lose an employee or customer than a federal politician to lose a vote. And as I’ve stated over and over majority opinion doesn’t make something right. Popular opinion has done some horrible things.

Huh? I think my insurer would rather lose me as a customer than pay for my $200,000 brain cancer treatment and subsequent rehab.[/quote]

And your government may rather let you die than pay for the treatment.

Or your representative may be able to afford losing your vote to use your money to by other votes. What’s your point?

If it were me I would be negotiating and setting up my coverage options before I needed brain surgery. That was my default insinuation. Losing a paying customer vs. a vote.

Do you really think you have more influence on coverage options with the federal government than that of a private company?

33

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m pro-abortion, but the government shouldn’t pay for it. [/quote]

x2

34

I still find it funny that Obama supports Planned Parent hood, which was started by a women who viewed the black race as filth, was routinely noted as giving speeches to organizations as the KKK, etc, and her sole reason was for racial genocide of the black community.