Originally Posted By WilliamK99 <a href="http://asia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20090805/twl-us-health-care-overhaul-abortion-ef375f8.html" target="_blank">http://asia.news.yahoo.com/ap/...5f8.html</a> Now before everyone gets their panties in a bunch over a woman's right to choose, I don't care either way on abortion rights, I can't get pregnant, so ultimately it'll be the woman's choice, and that is fine with me. Who am I to say what a woman can or cannot do with their body... My problem comes with the fact that only under circumstances of rape/incest or desth of the mother should Government funds be used to cover abortion. I see no reason why my tax payer dollars should cover your ass because you made a bad choice somewhere down the line. Now if you want to fork over the cash and have the procedure done yourself, knock yourself out, it's your money, not mine. I am in the unique position of already getting Government paid health care and I can tell you with 100% certainty that abortions are not covered under Tricare, if a soldier or spouse wants to have an abortion, they must pay for it themselves... Like I said, I am staying out of the Healthcare debate for the most part because I would be a hipocrite to be against it since I am already getting it, but abortions should not be covered... That is my main problem with the bill before Congress. The last thing we need is for Americans to use Abortions as birth control and if Abortions were covered, that is what would more than likely happen.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The bigger question is, is birth control covered? Also, would you rather foot the bill for an abortion, or the bill for an abused/fostered out unwanted child. I think if it is serious enough for an abortion, that could well be the lesser evil.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Also, would you rather foot the bill for an abortion, or the bill for an abused/fostered out unwanted child.<< I would foot the bill for adoption, which is a far better choice than abortion. I do not want to reward people for their incompetance, and allowing them to get a free abortion is rewarding them, not allowing them to learn from their mistakes... Taking 1000 dollars or so out of someone's pocket will ensure they think twice the next time they decide to have unprotected sex.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well I don't doubt where you are coming from. But having seen the 1000's of abuse cases and unwanted kids all these years (one in 3 of them ending up in prison on average). I would prefer kids to have a better start in life.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not real keen on taxpayer dollars footing the bill for abortions but I'm not keen about footing the bill for irresponsible lung cancer patients either. I don't know where you would draw the line.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Yep, it is a quagmire. Do you deny fatties from blood pressure or diabeties treatment? Drinkers from liver treatment? Smokers from lung treatment? Joggers from knee treatment? Where do you draw the line? Maybe those that are not genetically perfect should not be allowed kids and therefore disabled people are not allowed to have kids? Personally it is a dangerous area. A good one to debate, but it can be a real slippery slope. That is why it should be an open door for support IMHO.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 That is why it should be an open door for support IMHO. << How are abortions treated in England?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo This is how it currently works: "Terminating a pregnancy is a major decision and an extremely difficult one to make. It is advisable that the woman discusses her concerns with someone close who she can trust. For instance, it is often a good idea to consult your GP if you are pregnant and do not want to continue with the pregnancy. Alternatively, there are various counselling services, such as British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), Marie Stopes and LIFE. In the UK it is legal for termination to be carried out up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, but most hospitals and clinics will not consider termination beyond 18 to 20 weeks. For this reason alone, if a woman is considering termination, then she should discuss the situation with a doctor sooner rather than later. Also, the earlier a termination is carried out, the safer it is for the woman. The law states that two doctors need to agree that the abortion can be carried out. They will reach this decision if they believe there is a greater risk to the woman's mental or physical health if she continues with the pregnancy than if she has an abortion. The doctor can also take social circumstances into account when making this decision. In fact, a quirk in the wording of the 1967 Abortion Act means that virtually any woman can obtain a termination legally if she so desires. The doctor will then usually examine the woman to determine how long she has been pregnant, and also tell her about the options for termination and the risks involved. The doctor will send this request to the a hospital or clinic, which will then make an appointment for the termination to be performed. Many hospitals now have early pregnancy clinics for this reason, staffed by nurses and doctors who will deal with the problems sensitively." Although it is not very common, the option is there for all.
Originally Posted By queenbee <<In fact, none of the health care overhaul measures that have made it through the committee level in Congress say that abortion will be covered, and one of them explicitly says that no public funds will be used to finance the procedure. >> <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...ortions/</a> There is no planned change to federal policy regarding funding for abortions.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 How do you know? Everyone has admitted to not reading the entire thing... lol....
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo In the UK, sadly there are 29,200 child abuse cases for 2008. This is out of a child population of just over 12m children. Currently in England and Wales about 180,000 abortions are carried out a year. About 10,000 of these are for women coming from other parts of the world where abortion is not legal or is difficult to obtain - particularly particularly Ireland.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The US performs 1.2m known abortions currently. There are 4.5m child abuse cases reported in the US each year. This is out of a cohort of 73m children.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer There isn't a unversal health plan proposal on the table right now. The issue here is whether or not tax dollars would be used to pay for abortions under the public option and through any subsidies of private insurance purchased through an insurance exchange/pool. Some of the private insurance companies that would be in the pool already offer abortion benefits, and. The stink here is whether they could keep doing that if part of the insurance premiums are being paid by federal dollars.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Population of the UK is just under 70m. US population is 303m My calculations bring up some interesting results. Prevalance of child abuse cases is higher in the US with an impact of 6% of children being abused. In the UK, it works out at 0.2% of children being abused. Yet, the numbers of abortions in the US are higher too, with 0.4% of adults having abortions in the US compared to 0.2% in the UK, so nearly double the ratio. Interesting.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm kind of with William on this, I'd much rather see a child put up for adoption. Since we'll be footing the bill for a few things I have a few requests myself. 1. If you are into the extreme sports and by extreme I mean jumping out of an airplane to go skiing type. Or you like to wrestle gators(bear with me these are examples). Or if you watched the show Jackass and thought wow that all looks like a great idea. I don't really feel you deserve health care or expect any of us to pay for it. 2. Enhancement surgery if needed. If we're going to adopted a health care system like Sweeden, then let's get our women looking like Sweeden. ;P
Originally Posted By ecdc I agree...wait for it...with William. This is a thorny, tough issue. But it seems like a reasonable compromise to me, as part of the public option only, would be to provide birth control generously and provide all costs for adoption, but not to provide abortion funding. Unless of course, it's rape, incest, the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus is not viable. Make birth control readily available and FREE under the public option. Perhaps condoms are free and the pill costs $10 a month or something. Make any adoption expenses covered 100% by the government or 50/50 by the government and the adopting couple or their agency. Give people incentive to not get pregnant in the first place and to put up for adoption if they do. I don't want to see a public option die over this issue. Abortion is such a tough issue, and even though I absolutely support keeping it legalized, I don't think tax payers can be compelled to pay for it if they don't want to. But, it's so tricky, I'm happy to listen to points on both sides, provided they're reasonable and not shrill.
Originally Posted By mele I'm not sure what the women in Sweeden look like but Swedish women seem to be attractive. ;-)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Now if you want to fork over the cash and have the procedure done yourself, knock yourself out, it's your money, not mine. >> I always like how opponents of these things paint it like it's a financial issue. Nevermind that under a government health care system, the cost of a lifetime of care for new baby greatly exceeds the cost of an abortion? Then they talk about how people are irresponsible and should deal with the consequences of their actions. But they don't apply the same standards to people who smoke or eat too much. How about someone with an STD? Do we not treat those because the person was "irresponsible?" Then what? We just let diseases go untreated throughout our society so that the transmission rates increase even more? This isn't a financial issue. It isn't an issue of personal responsibility. It's solely an issue of a splinter group that wants to impose their definition of morality on the entire population. Why not just come out and admit that from the start?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Make birth control readily available and FREE under the public option. >> Interesting solution, except that there are large portions of the pro-life lobby that are against birth control as well. They would complain just as loudly about this compromise.
