Originally Posted By EdisYoda Well, admittedly, she gets most of her "news" from FOX, however she says that even CNN is saying this. I haven't confirmed any of it, but I'm going to be looking more into it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << My mom (68) is very worried that if this passes, she will lose portions of her health care due to "drastic" cuts in medicare. >> Medicare is probably more doomed if this doesn't pass. Unless we can figure out how to stem the inflation of health care costs, Medicare becomes way too unaffordable for us. If we get a health care reform bill that effectively reduces health care costs and inflation, Medicare may have a chance to survive.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>My mom (68) is very worried that if this passes, she will lose portions of her health care due to "drastic" cuts in medicare.<< Tell your mom to quit being such a socialist, and go buy her own dang healthcare instead of forcing us taxpayers to pay for it. ;-)
Originally Posted By barboy Let's revist #2 ///The bigger question is, is birth control covered?/// I say *basically* no. Creating and preventing birth is elective in nature and should not be covered.
Originally Posted By mele It would be better for the govt. to cover birth control. It's cheaper than paying for multiple hospital visits for childbirth. Plus, you should include the cost of more people asking for public assistance for their many children.
Originally Posted By barboy When I said "creating and preventing birth" I was talking about pretty much all forms: fertility treatments materinty antifertility treaments abortions vasectomies tube tying
Originally Posted By mele I had a hysterectomy a few years ago. It was my choice. There were cheaper options that might have helped me but there was also questions about whether those procedures would cure the problem 100%. I chose the 100% effective method but it was quite a bit more expensive and drastic. I was really ill but it was still an elective surgery. Thankfully, my insurance paid for most of it and I consider it to be the very best decision I ever made. I think it's a very grey area when you start talking about what's elective or necessary. Depression meds aren't totally necessary and yet people opt to take them to improve their quality of life. People have different ideas about health/wellness/illness, etc and different ideas about what is ethical to treat or not treat. I dunno... I did have a big argument with my cousin once; she felt that insurance companies should pay for fertility treatments. I disagreed with her. I do not think everything should be covered. I'm just saying there's a line and it's not the same for everyone.
Originally Posted By barboy Thanks for that very relevant testimony and you bring up an important point about grey areas. I will give this more thought so let's put my #66 on ice for now instead of in stone.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Creating and preventing birth is elective in nature and should not be covered.>> Then erectile dysfunction medications should not be covered, either. Yet all major insurance companies and HMOs presently cover these drugs. Birth control pills? Not covered. Viagra? Covered. What's wrong with this picture?
Originally Posted By DAR This is for the men, will you be covered if your penis is krazy glued to your stomach. See my Wisconsin post today.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 In the case of rape or incest I absolutely think that abortion should be covered by insurance, whether it is public or private. Forcing a victim to live with a daily reminder of her attack for nine months is abhorrant. That said, I think that if you get pregnant through consensual acts, you should pay if you want an abortion.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Oh yeah, it should also be covered if the life of the mother is in danger.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin But, anybody that wants an abortion is going to claim rape/incest. So it's a moot point. And who's going to decide who's telling the truth? And being as it's a time sensitive issue, there isn't time for appeals. So wouldn't/shouldn't it just be an "on demand" thing.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 But, anybody that wants an abortion is going to claim rape/incest. So it's a moot point. And who's going to decide who's telling the truth? And being as it's a time sensitive issue, there isn't time for appeals. So wouldn't/shouldn't it just be an "on demand" thing.<< A court of law.... Perjury is punishable by jail time, I doubt people would risk going to jail over a few hundred for an abortion.
Originally Posted By piperlynne HR 3200 for anyone that wants to look at it. <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200" target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...H.R.3200</a>:
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I doubt people would risk going to jail over a few hundred for an abortion.<< On whose planet?
Originally Posted By Mr X I find the notion that a woman who is raped should be required to prove it to a court (let alone the victim of incest, how hard would THAT be to talk about!?). Hey William, if you were raped, would you be happy to go into a public room and discuss it?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Hey William, if you were raped, would you be happy to go into a public room and discuss it?<< Yes I would, I would want the person who did it to me, to be tried and convicted....
Originally Posted By Mr X Not talking about a trial, for something completely separate which would be of a slight financial benefit for you. Would you be okay with that?
