Ahhhh, so it's not forced. These people are merely being told 'raise a child for 18 years at the cost of roughly $200,000+ or become sterilized'.
That's much less creepy.
Ahhhh, so it's not forced. These people are merely being told 'raise a child for 18 years at the cost of roughly $200,000+ or become sterilized'.
That's much less creepy.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Did you even read the original post?
Like currently law, medically necessary abortions, for the reasons outlines, are paid for with federal funds. Any other abortion is elective and comparing it to breast enlargement is in no way a straw man argument.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
Since the topic of discussion is the conditions by which the government would provide health coverage in a plan you are already going to be paying premiums on and through taxes paid, you're attempting to advocate people to not use services they are contractually owed by creating the condition of sterilization for the use of them. Stupid.
Just stop, you made a dumb point and you got called out on it. It's doubly dumb because such a thing would never be implemented so it's not even worth discussing.
Not sure where the point is "dumb". Taxpayer right's are going to be very important if we ever have UHC.
Risky behavior that may cause the budget for healthcare to go up will be discouraged.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,989
- 11,687
- 136
Read it and the link, which apparently you skimmed over ....
"that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join" ..... so show me a plan that covers enlargements and then we'll talk about it. Isn't one of the major fear mongering hangups about UHC "you'll get less coverage"??? Or is that only when it fits in with the rest of the agenda?
"that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join" ..... so show me a plan that covers enlargements and then we'll talk about it. Isn't one of the major fear mongering hangups about UHC "you'll get less coverage"??? Or is that only when it fits in with the rest of the agenda?
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
Look fucknuts, I remember what you said about caring for a child with a heart disease and how that child should't be covered. Who in the blue fuck are you to talk about anyone's empathy or sympathy.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Oh great, I hope this doesn't enter the national 'debate' over healthcare. The last thing we need in discussing healthcare reform is another culture-wars dead horse to whip on.
As far as that goes, personally I think that any public option should include abortion coverage for documented cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity. Breast enlargement? Wow, that is reaching...
As far as that goes, personally I think that any public option should include abortion coverage for documented cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity. Breast enlargement? Wow, that is reaching...
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
I think you are refering to Obama's czars.
Science Czar John Holdren has advocated for putting sterilants in the drinking water and having forced abortions. He has also stated that babies up to the age of 3 should not be considered human as they are "not socialized" and should thus be allowed to be aborted.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
No, as no public option exists for healthcare. Medically nessary care != Emergency care in all cases. If you are uninsured, the only way you can get any sort of abortion if you can't yourself afford it is to wait until it does land you into the ER, same with any other medical condition. Thats part of the problem. It is cheaper and better medically to take care of things before they get to that point. Why people are up in arms about this I can't fathom.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
That is a matter of ethics, not necessarily of science. He must be from the fringe school of Utilitarian ethical/philosophical theory. Promoting scientific research does not equal promoting public policy. The scientific community long ago decided that it was unethical to conduct experiments or procedures indiscriminately on a population without their consent. I doubt Mr. Holdren would disagree with that.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
No, I know exactly to whom I am referring, it is definitely fucknuts. He's a pathetic waste of dna.
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,989
- 11,687
- 136
Then you need to read the rest of your article where people with current plans that actually cover more than non-elective abortions are worried they would get less coverage under a new govt. option.
Jesus, I thought thats what you folks were firing people up over ...
Pens1566
Lifer
- Oct 11, 2005
- 13,989
- 11,687
- 136
No one is arguing those cases should be covered copernicus. Most of us are all caught up.
What you seem to have trouble getting is that people with current plans have it covered period. No stipulations, no excuses. It's covered. In order for them to not be taking a step back in the coverage they have (big republican scare tactic here), any govt. UHC plan would need the same. Got it? Its even mentioned past the first paragraph in the article you linked.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Per the article:
Just because federal funds are provided doesn't mean that a) enough is provided, b) the money actually gets where it is supposed to go, and c) the states' respective laws reciprocate the federal policy. I'm talking about the practical reality here. If you have no insurance, likely you won't get anything diagnosed until you are in the ER. The law says that a hospital cannot refuse to treat you, but they will do everything in their power to get you out the door asap whether you've been treated fully or not.
The red tape surrounding abortion (especially in states like mine) is so thick that the policy may as well not exist. If you have an medical need for abortion, where do you go? What practical options do you have, especially in a red state? Without a health plan, either public or private, a woman in need of an abortion is SOL. The practical reality is that those who need an abortion for medical reasons but cannot afford insurance otherwise are better off under a structured medical plan as they can take care of things much earlier and much more smoothly.
Edit: I see that another point being discussed is for elective abortions. I am arguing for those 'excepted' cases above as there are many who want to shoot down the public option if it included any exceptions.
However, if a true 'public option' is to be competitive with private plans, it would have to offer the same services as private plans. If it does not, as would be the case of covering elective abortions, then that plan is at a disadvantage. This is quite the opposite of the naysayers that say private plans cannot compete.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter