Would you be happy if you had a truly affordable health plan that covered 99%

[pnwmom]

of your lifetime care?

What if the 1% was due to the exclusion of non-medically necessary abortions (medically necessary including for mental health)? And/or other medically non-necessary procedures?

[shraby]

1. Nope, by its very definition, an abortion demands

a doctor and medical care. If a procedure is considered medical, it would be necessary to have a doctor and medical care. I think a plan should be 100% and the American people have an economy that would pay for it. Some things other than medical care would have to be cut..the F-22 fighter jets were a good start. Making mining companies pay the back "rent" on their leased public land would be another place to find funds..catching up on tax-dodging off shore bank accounts would be another. I could probably name a hundred cuts that can be made without even thinking hard that the government can get the funds from.
The secret service protection afforded to v.p. Cheney recently is another. Use the regular prison system for officials who break the law instead of giving them plush jails in which to incarcerate them.

[pnwmom]

6. So does a nose job or liposuction. Should that be included, too?

If someone really really hates his nose, but there's nothing physically wrong with it?

I think many people are in the broad middle ground on abortion. They think women should have the right to choose -- but they might not want their taxes to go for paying for unnecessary abortions -- for example, abortions of fetuses that are healthy girls because the parents prefer a boy.

[Luminous Animal]

18. This is pathetic.

Are you trying to say that women have abortions because they hate the fetus? Abortions and birth control are reproductive health care. Health care. Not cosmetic surgery. And I call bullshit on your fear-mongering scenario. It's akin to the ticking time bomb scenario that has led this nation to openly debate the efficacy of torture. Long on fantasy, short on probability.

[pnwmom]

29. Some women selectively abort healthy fetuses of the wrong gender.

This has nothing to do with medical need.

[Sparkly]

46. Are there some stats on this??

I think it's an anti-choice myth that women often have "elective" abortions for frivolous reasons, as if they treated the matter casually and other people needed to step in to keep them ethical.

[Hepburn]

70. So what?

If they have medical insurance ~~ it is a medical procedure and should be covered.

What is it that you do not understand about the FACT that an abortion is a medical procedure?

:shrug:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

78. "medical proceedure" =/= "elective medical proceedure"

What is it that you do not understand about people do not want to pay for elective proceedures.

[Hepburn]

81. What is it you do not understand about the RIGHT OF PRIVACY.

Try again ~~ epic fail...:eyes:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

91. Right of privacy?

How is not covering an abortion a violation of privacy?
Technically, there would be less parties involved in abortions not covered by the state.

[polmaven]

95. Yeah, you're right!

Those "parties" would mainly consist of wire coat hangers. You apparently don't remember the days prior to Roe v. Wade.

Outlawing abortion, or making it too expensive or burdensome WILL NOT STOP ABORTION! It will only stor SAFE abortions.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

101. Who said anything about outlawing abortion, coat hangers, or R.vW. ??

As I understand it, abortion is currently not covered under most insurance plans. Yet, despite this fact we see that abortion is not currently too expensive or burdensome and occurs quite frequently. (Nearly 75% of abortions are paid for out of pocket - medicaid, insurance, and low-income assistance cover the rest). I'm not talking about stopping abortion, as that not my goal or belief. People have the right to abortions... they also have the right to foot the bill.

The fact remains, adult actions require adult responsibility and the taxpayers should not be culpable for the abdication of responsibility on the part people who cannot plan... especially if contraception and emergency contraception are made free and available under the new healthcare system.

[pnwmom]

105. If a valid health care reform measure passes, then it will free up enough financial

resources for most women so that they can afford an abortion if necessary. For women without any financial resources, progressive and women's groups could fund them.

[Sparkly]

97. Privacy: it's a woman's right to make private decisions about medical procedures. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

102. I dont see how who's paying the bill interferes with the privacy of the choice

make the choice, pay the doctor - nobody needs to know.

[Hepburn]

119. Let me type more slowly, OK?

P-R-I-V-A-C-Y
I-S
A
C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L-L-Y
P-R-O-T-E-C-T-E-D
R-I-G-H-T.

:eyes:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

122. Explain.

If "privacy" means something other that what I'm thinking... could you explain? Because the way I'm seeing it, not covering elective abortions is unrelated to privacy and any abortion that is covered under healthcare or insurance would have to systematically be less private.

What is more private?
A doctor performing an abortion and the patient paying the bill.
A doctor performing the abortion on the patient and some finance department contacting who-knows-where for the payment reimbursement.

[pnwmom]

149. And nothing will be changed. Women would still be able to

get abortions, just as they are now.

And since all the rest of their medical care would be covered by insurance, the cost of the abortion -- even if they have to pay for it themselves-- will be offset by the rest of their savings. For women who are low income, progressive organizations can raise money to pay for abortions.

[Sparkly]

88. How about if somebody's face got smashed to pieces in a car accident.

Who decides if reconstructive surgery is "elective" or "medically necessary?"

What if a patient has a choice about whether or not to get specific treatments for cancer -- "elective," yes?

If someone has nerve damage but could live that way for years, efforts to repair the nerves wouldn't be "medically necessary."

Or what about birth control procedures of all kinds, both for men and for women? "Elective."

So that's a weak distinction.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

100. in my opinion, it is the most fair and fitting option.

"Who decides if reconstructive surgery is "elective" or "medically necessary?"
reconstrive surgury (in the sense that your once normal body has somehow been fucked up) is generally covered as a medical proceedure currently. Elective plastic surgury is not. In truly indecisive cases, the decision of "necessary or elective" should probably fall on a medical review board... similar to how hospitals handle unisured proceedures currently. I see no reason why these standards need to change when transitioning into the new healthcare system.

"What if a patient has a choice about whether or not to get specific treatments for cancer -- "elective," yes?"
cancer treatment is certainly a medical proceedure and would be covered as without it, you would certainly die. The only question about certain cancer treatments is, "Is it cost effective?" which is more of a rationing question - not a question of elective versus required in nature.

"Or what about birth control procedures of all kinds, both for men and for women? "Elective.""
IMO preventative birth control (the pill, condoms and other contraceptives) should be free or covered.
Why should taxpayers pay for medical contraceptive proceedures? I see no reason if contraceptive is available.

Also, I am not saying "NO abortions should be covered" just that elective abortions should not be covered. Eligable scenarios should be rape, incest, birth defects, elevated risk of pregnancy to the mother or fetus... situations like that. I would also expect the coverage of abortion to be covered to those living below the poverty threashold.

-------------------------------------

Boob jobs are a medical proceedure. Should they be covered? Should hookers be walking around with D cups?
Should every guy have a full head of hair until he dies? If I want to look like Fabio - do I get to (for free)?
If Jason feels like becoming a Janice, do you want to pay for his/her surguries.
Should people lazy couch potatoes be getting liposuction because american american idol it more entertaining than the gym?
Too lazy to brush your teeth?... just get some veneers.
Man, I was drunk as hell last night when I got 56 stars tattooed on my face - good thing I won't be paying to remove them.

Where do you draw the line?
IMO, the most logical place is "elective" versus "required" - regardless of the proceedure.

[orleans]

153. boob jobs? hookers? D cups?

hey, fella: GET OUT FROM BETWEEN MY LEGS! WHAT GOES ON THERE AND IN MY UTERUS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

[Raineyb]

137. That's not your business

And procedures should not be excluded from coverage because some people don't like it.

[pnwmom]

152. In an ideal world that wouldn't happen. But what if it means we can pass

no health reform at all?

[Raineyb]

162. But you went out of your way to try to stir up disgust at the procedure in order to

get the answer you want to your question. It's inappropriate and frankly how do you have health care if it only covers some health items? It's ridiculous. I wouldn't consider such a proposal appropriate at all.

[pnwmom]

167. No, I just answered people who were trying to sidetrack the question.

Read my initial question again. Most people don't want to answer it for some reason.

[Lars39]

27. Any abortion becomes a medical necessity since every single pregnancy

has the risk of death or permanent injury.

[pnwmom]

31. There is no medical necessity to selectively abort a healthy female fetus. n/t

[Lars39]

33. Wrong....the risk of death and permenent injury still exist.

[pnwmom]

38. There is no more risk to give birth to a female baby than to a male.

Selection abortion of a healthy child for the sake of gender selection cannot be said to be a medical necessity.

[Lars39]

39. The risk still exists, whether it is for a decision you don't personally approve of or not.

[pnwmom]

44. There is no additional risk from a pregnancy with a female fetus,

therefore no medical reason to abort one and not the other.

[Lars39]

48. The medical reason exists because of the pregnancy itself.

[HughMoran]

56. ...but voluntary versus necessary

is a point that can't be casually overlooked.

[Hepburn]

84. So reproductive rights are "voluntary?"

A pregnancy caused by rape or incest ~~ an abortion would not be a necessity in your book IMO. In mine, I do not have a right to dictate what goes on with the womb of anther woman.

Are vasectomies "voluntary," too? :eyes:

[pnwmom]

110. A pregnancy in those cases would threaten the mental health of the mother. n/t

[Hepburn]

118. IMO....

...it is none of anyone's business why a woman wants and abortion ~~ it is her right. PERIOD. IMO, it does NOT have to be a medical necessity. It is simply her right as the host to get rid of something she does not wish to have in her body.

What is so difficult about that to understand??? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

147. I'm pro-choice. I'm also urgently in favor of major health reform.

All women will be FAR better off if we can get major health reform passed -- even if it doesn't include abortion benefits. The cost of an abortion is a drop in the bucket compared to the lifetime of medical expenses that most people face today.

[Hepburn]

161. Who then makes the decision of "medical necessity?"

Ooooooooh...try that slippery slope, OK?

What's next ~~ no BC pills? :eyes:

[pnwmom]

168. The doctor. Which means it probably wouldn't be hard for most women

to get.

[orleans]

155. come on.

i guess, after reading this thread, i get your point--
you want health care reform, regardless of whether or not it's perfect. and i agree with that. we have to start somewhere. i would prefer to get rid of ins. companies altogether, but i know that's not gonna happen (yet anyway).

i want it too. i'm hoping we can tweak it into perfection once it gets underway.

[HughMoran]

170. Everyone here assumes that rape or incest pregnancies would be covered

That's why I've been careful to point out this difference repeatedly in this thread.

[csziggy]

89. Where are your statistics on this? I call BS since I have never heard of an American woman

Aborting a fetus simply because it is not the desired gender.

So post a link to valid statistics or admit this is a straw man argument.

[orleans]

154. is that your deal? you don't want women to abort female fetuses?

so...then you're ok with them aborting a male fetus?

[Gwendolyn]

30. Abortion is not cosmetic surgery.

It falls under women's health care. If women are contributing their hard-earned dollars to their own health care, why would they be excluded from receiving 100% of what they've paid for. Are men denied in the same way? No.

Your tax payer dollars currently support Planned Parenthood, so what's the difference? You ARE contributing to the health care of women and some of that includes providing abortion.

[pnwmom]

32. That's not the point. The point is that getting health care reform passed

might hinge on getting the votes of Blue Dog Dems who don't support abortion.

Would you rather keep insisting on abortion coverage? Or have no reform at all? I think we're better off getting 99% of what we want than nothing.

[Gwendolyn]

43. But then it's not a question of whether or not abortion is the equivalent of a tummy tuck.

Or whether women are abusing the system by creating their own circle of eugenics. It's about women sacrificing the health care services they're entitled to, and have paid for through premiums or tax dollars, in order to appease the moral tastes of anti-choicers. Might as well just call a spade a spade.

[pnwmom]

45. It's about giving up the 1% in order to get the 99%. n/t

[Hepburn]

71. +1....n/t

[fascisthunter]

112. comparing abortion to cosmetic surgery is very telling

and over the line. You can disagree with ever having an abortion yourself and loathe the idea of a woman having one, but to claim it is the same as cosmetic surgery is just plain intellectual dishonesty.

Be honest... a woman needs an abortion or else she dies due to complications the doctor advises. Would you really consider that cosmetic?

[tbyg52]

125. Bingo. nt

[pnwmom]

148. Of course that situation is not cosmetic.

But there are situations where neither the mental orthe physical well being of the mother or fetus is involved -- such as when a healthy fetus is aborted because it is the wrong gender. An abortion in that situation is elective -- not medically necessary.

[pinto]

87. I'll second getting taxes owed the US from off-shore American held accounts.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

[NoSheep]

144. Good gawd I love this human being!!!! STRAIGHT to the point.

:bounce:

[provis99]

2. if we would just stop building crappy useless aircraft carriers

We could use the freed-up tax money for real universal health care, covering everyone, including dental, eye, and ear care, and any other necessary medical procedure. But no, we'd rather build white elephant weapons systems than take care of our health. Such is the American Creed.

[leftstreet]

7. +1

[Manifestor_of_Light]

3. Can't carve out an exception for non-payment of abortion.

It's settled law. The right wing fetus fanatics don't understand that abortion is a sometimes medically-necessary procedure to save the LIFE and HEALTH of the mother.

[pnwmom]

8. That's why I said in cases where it was NOT medically necessary, even for

mental health reasons.

For example, some people opt for abortion simply because they don't want a female baby. This is actually common in some countries. Should our taxes pay for that?

[Luminous Animal]

20. Really? Who are those people?

Do you meet them casually at cocktail parties? Or do they slip you confessional notes over your transom? I do agree though, our taxes should not pay for abortions in other countries, no matter what the reason.

[pnwmom]

40. I know a California grad student who was under great pressure

from her husband's family to have an abortion simply because the fetus was a girl. This was her first pregnancy and the family wanted a boy. She said this was common in her culture, even here.

I don't know what decision she finally made.

[Hepburn]

72. What the hell relevance does that have?

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

109. You could have answered your question yourself if you'd bothered to read

the post I was directly responding to, if not the others in the thread.

[uppityperson]

98. No. Our taxes should not pay for abortions of females in China

[mwooldri]

136. Even for mental health reasons?

Mental health is inextricably linked with physical health. I know first hand of this.

In terms of this: if two doctors agree (and there can (and should) be psychologists involved, not just two OB-GYN's) that a pregnancy termination is medically necessary and in the best interests of the individual, then quite simply, the judgment of the doctors need to be trusted, two doctors have signed on to this, and the public option needs to pay. EVEN IN THE CASE OF WRONG GENDER. It is highly possible that a woman who has her heart dead set on having a boy who finds out she's having a girl may get to the point of suicide, and may endanger herself, her unborn child, and even if left to term and give birth will not take care of that baby girl. That's a medical reason. If the woman is just disappointed she's having the "wrong gender" and she cannot find two doctors who agree she qualifies for a termination, then she can fund it herself because she has the right over her own body she can do it... but there is no medical reason for it.

It works this way in the UK's NHS for other non-medically necessary surgeries too. Breast implants are not necessary, neither is penis enlargment. However if you're a female with absolutely zero development up top, or you are a male with a 1" penis, and you have mental health issues that completely surround that as well, then the NHS will cover it (eventually). However I haven't heard of any case in the NHS where a woman with DD breasts are enlarged even more though if they exist they're rare as anything and if found out about it'd be on Page 3 of The Sun.

As a point of wrong gender... ultrasounds can be wrong. My son was a girl until 3 weeks before his birth, according to all the prior ultrasounds.

Mark.

[MADem]

4. Well, I have that, but I'd like to see others have it, as well.

I think that "A" business, though, is between a woman and her doctor. Not the government.

[pnwmom]

9. Except that we would all be paying for the abortions through our taxes.

What if people weren't comfortable with their taxes paying for medically unnecessary abortions, for example, those to abort fetuses of the "wrong" gender? (This is a growing problem in a number of countries.)

[leftstreet]

10. We kill people in other countries with our taxes. Your point?

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

11. My point is that if women can get affordable lifetime health care, then they'll

be far better off than if no agreement comes to pass because of a stalemate on the subject of abortion. The average woman would get how many abortions in her lifetime? As opposed to how much medical care beyond that? If we have to give way on abortion, I think the tradeoff is acceptable. Women's groups can fund charitable organizations to pay for the abortions of women who can't afford them.

[Mimosa]

143. You're right, pnwmom

BTW I've twice seen 'tubal litigation' mentioned. Once was bad enough. The proper term is tubal ligation.

[MADem]

13. Again, that's not your business or mine. If the womb isn't yours, you need to stay out of it.

Objecting to a procedure that a woman and her doctor agree are in the best interest of the patient is not the job of any taxpayer. It's not their business, either.

That's as silly as objecting to hip or knee replacement for old people because "they're gonna die soon, anyway." Not your role. Not mine, either.

[pnwmom]

15. I'd be happy to stay out of it. But I won't be happy if health care reform

fails because of the issue of abortion.

Why isn't it the business of taxpayers IF the care isn't medically necessary? Why should taxpayers have to pay for procedures that are elective -- such as many kinds of plastic surgery and abortions that aren't related to the health of the mother?

[MADem]

17. It isn't for you to determine if the procedure is "medically necessary."

That's up to the woman and her doctor, not you, not me, not anyone else. Being forced to bear a child that someone isn't mentally, physically, financially or emotionally ready for could have a profound impact on the "health of the mother." But see, unless it's your womb, you don't get to be the decider. Nor do I.

We're not talking about cosmetic surgery, here. That's way too much "lumping" to even be credible.

[NoSheep]

145. Further liking your p.o.v.

[MADem]

156. My attitude in a nutshell: If you do not like abortion, by all means, do not have one.

Beyond that, it's no one's business but the woman with the womb.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Because abortion is reproductive health.

That is, it is health care. Just as vasectomies and tubal litigation are health care and elective. And necessary to reproductive health. It doesn't matter if it is elective. There is a difference between cosmetic and elective. Knee surgery is elective. Sure, without it, a person could live their lives with a some (to varying degrees) pain and walk with a cane. But, in many cases, it is not a necessity. Often hernia operations are elective. There are plenty of people who live their lives with a support belt and forgo surgery altogether.

[pnwmom]

25. Abortion isn't necessary to reproductive health for most women.

Pregnancy doesn't cause poor health for most women.

Yes, there are risks -- and there are risks for abortion, too.

[noamnety]

77. Once you are pregnant, it's going to be resolved one way or another.

Giving birth is also not "necessary" to reproductive health for most women - they could opt for the much cheaper abortion. Yet - I don't see you arguing to do away with coverage for prenatal care, labor and delivery.

[endarkenment]

92. And they should home birth or field birth too.

Screw these poor women. They don't need a doctor. Women managed without doctors for at least a million years.
:wtf:

[csziggy]

93. Neither is birth control by some definitions - are you willing to exempt that from health care

Choices for women? Because that is what some of the right wing extremists believe - that birth control equals abortion and therefore should be illegal.

Why remove only choices that affect only one group of Americans and give it the force of law rather than leave medical choices between a patient and their doctor?

[JerseygirlCT]

103. Because, as has been explained

it's always medically necessary. It's the medical procedure to fix a condition.

Should we look through every procedure and can it if it's not necessary for the person to live? Don't bother saving that arm - people can live without one. Don't bother worrying about that kidney - can function with one...

Offering up abortion as unnecessary medical care is only caving to the right-wings continuing war on women. And it's an unacceptable invasion of privacy and of a doctor's judgement in providing the best care for her/his patient.

Seriously - have you heard mention of any other medical procedure being put on the chopping block for political expediency?

[Hepburn]

73. And I am uncomfortabe paying for viagra....

...your point?

[Sparkly]

75. Weapons of mass destruction are something I'm uncomfortable out my taxes paying for.

Well, that and Viagra. Also whatever the Chimp still gets.

[Hepburn]

79. Yes....

....there are tax dollar that for a lot of shit I don't like ~~ but that is part of being a member of society.

[Sparkly]

83. Yup.

But I guess women can't be trusted, seein' how they go around making frivolous decisions about "voluntary abortions" and all. So that makes people extra-extra super-duper wildly uncomfortable. :crazy:

[Hepburn]

86. Hey, but guys make GREAT decisions ~~

~~ getting getting viagra cuz a hard-on is a necessity of life, right? So an RX for viagra HAS TO BE covered by insurance!

:eyes:

[Sparkly]

90. Nobody's comfortable with a flaccid member, but I have a compromise.

Whenever a man feels his medical necessity for viagra, he should have to consult with his clergy, his spouse and/or significant other(s), go through some counseling, and appear before a judge to explain exactly why he needs it. Just to make sure he's making an informed decision.

[Hepburn]

117. Ooooooooooooh, yes

I totally agree! :applause:

[TheKentuckian]

5. While I think abortions should be covered

I'd sure take it and score it a hell of a victory. The scenario described may leave a bitter taste in the mouth but anytime the WIN outweighs the FAIL 99 to 1, plus you save a few bucks you pretty much have to be reasonably satisfied.

[kevinbgoode]

12. No...because the wingnuts would continue to find something else

they didn't like that shouldn't qualify. And then something else. And then something else. By the end of the next Republican Administration, the "public option" would only pay for medical care for the GOP. These people are control freaks, and if I'm forced to pay taxes so they can have their fu*king "faith-based" bulls*it...then they can pay into the pot for abortion. Otherwise, Congress can clean out that money for the faith-based crap and let the tax-exempt "religious" organizations on their own.

[noamnety]

14. WTF??

What if it covered everything except it had one little thing it didn't cover for black people?

What if we stopped excusing democrats for writing bigotry into the laws?

[pnwmom]

16. Do you think it should cover nose jobs, tummy tucks, liposuction?

Because they would make the patient feel better?

[Luminous Animal]

22. No, but I think it should cover vasectomies and tubal litigations

because it should cover reproductive health care. And abortions and birth control are reproductive health care.

[noamnety]

24. I find this to be a bigoted comment

if your implication is that women get abortions to "feel better"

[pnwmom]

26. Some women selectively abort healthy female fetuses.

Which has nothing to do with a medical choice.

[endarkenment]

37. I find this a bigoted comment.

I'm insulted. I'm not even a woman and I'm insulted by your remark.

[pnwmom]

47. You don't know that there is a growing problem around the world of

selective abortion of female fetuses?

I personally know of a situation where a young woman was under great pressure from her husband's family to abort her first pregnancy, because the fetus was female. The family insisted on a boy. The young woman was very torn, and said this wasn't uncommon in their culture. I don't know what decision she made in the end -- but if it had been completely up to her, she wouldn't have considered an abortion just because the baby would be a girl.

[Sparkly]

49. Women are burned for infidelity in other cultures around the world, too.

I think we're talking about an AMERICAN healthcare system.

[endarkenment]

55. Way to go there - just tack right off in a different direction.

I get that you are opposed to abortion. I suggest that you not have one, if the situation arises.

[pnwmom]

104. Actually, I'm pro-choice. But not to the extent I think it's worth giving up

health care reform.

And not to the extent that I'm unwilling to face the thought that some women actually have abortions under pressure from other people to do so.

As far as "tacking off in a different direction," I'm was responding to posts that refused to acknowledge my initial question and instead went off in a different direction. How is it that women would not be MUCH better off than they are now if they had a govt. health plan paying for 99% of their health needs -- even if they had to face the chance of finding other organizations or resources to pay for an occasional abortion?

[Hepburn]

74. Sure....

....I see no reason for improving a person's self image.

Are you against that?

I also think it should pay for sexual reassignment surgery.

[Iris]

42. well put.

[Withywindle]

19. YOu do realize that pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening condition for EVERY woman, right?

I have a friend who almost died when she was pregnant. Early 20s, healthy, fit, vegetarian, nonsmoker, married, wanted a child. No sign anything was wrong until her blood pressure went through the roof in her third trimester. She hemorrhaged on the operating table. Thank the gods, the emergency doctors were able to save both her and her son. She'll never have another.

It's not some kind of issue of convenience. It is in no way comparable to a fucking nose job. Pregnancy is a massive life-changing risk for even the healthiest woman, and should NEVER be undertaken by or forced upon anyone who's not 100% willing.

[Luminous Animal]

23. In more ways than one.

My ex-husband beat the crap out of me when I got pregnant. I left him (I had no money), slept on friends couches and had a state paid for abortion.

[pnwmom]

28. Yes, I do. But it goes back to my question.

How much does an abortion cost? What percentage of the lifetime medical care of the typical woman would abortions represent?

There is a real chance that health care reform could get derailed on the subject of abortion. Wouldn't women be better off having 99% or more of their care covered, than having health care reform fail because of the possibility that they will need an abortion?

Couldn't there be other means found for funding abortions that wouldn't threaten health care reform?

[Sparkly]

35. IF people need to see that issue in terms of public dollars ...

... then remind them what it costs for a child's education, healthcare, possible public assistance, etc.

[Hepburn]

76. None of your fucking business....

...any more than whose enema might be covered.

It is a PRIVACY right...and it is a medical procedure. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, OK?

[noamnety]

52. You're giving her way too much credit.

She's not comparing giving birth to a nose job - she's comparing getting an abortion to a nose job.

1. The comparison is made because nose jobs are seen as frivolous badges of vanity that are the domain of the priviliged, implying that women who get abortions are privileged and doing it because they are vain and frivolous,

and

2. By comparing getting an abortion to getting a nose job, the implication is that deciding not to get an abortion - the decision to spend weeks in the hospital or on bed rest because of complications, going through c-sections, going through other high risk issues or dying in child birth, losing your ability to support yourself because of complications, losing future insurance because of "preexisting conditions" and going into bankruptcy - is exactly like deciding not to get a nose job.

[undeterred]

34. In the world of politics 99% is pretty high.

How often do we get to vote for a candidate we agree with 99% of the time? So, yes, that would be acceptable. We could privately raise funds to help women get abortions and then it wouldn't be a bickering point.

[endarkenment]

36. I think all italians should be excluded

that would save a lot.

Or perhaps we should force working women without adequate funds to have a baby they can't afford and don't want.

Either one.

[Iris]

41. Nope. Not if the 1% exclusion is related to my gender.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. There's that, isn't there? Funny how this topic keeps coming up -

here and elsewhere - and it's always about not covering a procedure that's only for women.

Shall we start choosing what area of men's health to disallow as well?

[csziggy]

96. If we're going to chose an area of men's health to exclude

How about ANY medical tests, procedures or prescriptions that improve the chances of men over 50 getting an erection? After all, the ability of old men to have sex is not medically necessary! If men want children, they can have them earlier in life rather than wait. Old farts don't need to get it up and look at all the trouble it causes! :sarcasm:

[Iris]

113. No. Something life-threatening, not something they THINK is life-threatening. My vote is prostate

screenings.

[csziggy]

116. Heck most men would probably welcome that since they hate them

Even if early screening can save their lives.

[mitchtv]

139. Viagra

Cialis, Levitra could be disallowed

[lukasahero]

50. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly women are willing to sacrifice other women

It's HEALTHcare - your morality should hold no sway over my health.

[JerseygirlCT]

85. Exactly

and once we allow this to be outside the necessary... two things can happen much more easily:

first, abortion is suddenly not paid for, period. If anyone thinks that if a gov't plan doesn't cover, private insurance will continue to cover, they're fooling themselves.

second, we'll go back through the whole damn fight over this right. Suddenly people will assume it's once again up for grabs. The fight never ends, it seems.

Not to mention the many women dying for lack of this necessary medical care.

[pnwmom]

151. I'd be perfectly happy to pay taxes to fund health care that included abortions.

But it's not up to me. And if we can't get health care passed without the votes of some Blue Dog Democrats, then I think t the financial trade-off is well worth it. Women aren't getting abortions paid for as it is -- it's not like they would lose anything. But if health care reform passes, then all women will benefit over the course of their entire lifetimes -- in the context of which, the cost of one or more abortions is a drop in the bucket.

[Maru Kitteh]

51. I would not be happy about the exclusion at all, but I want to get somewhere first.

In my perfect world:

Eyecare would be included
Dentistry would be included
All reproductive care including birth control, abortion, vasectomy, ligation AND infertility care to include up to three IVF procedures, and adoption assistance - would all be included.


But I want to get somewhere first. The very minute after my daughters have access to regular and life-saving medical care, I will join the effort to lobby for these services.

[noamnety]

57. access to "regular" care

are you implying that reproductive health care for women is not "regular" medical care?

[endarkenment]

60. I am astounded at the attitude on display here.

[Maru Kitteh]

108. Perhaps because you didn't take the time to read for comprehension.

[endarkenment]

114. Oh I read quite well thanks.

The proposal of the OP is to extend the Hideous Hyde Amendment to any healthcare reform. The OP herself has a religious agenda, which she uncleverly revealed in some of her responses. Yes, for sure, let's toss poor women under the bus. Oh wait, we already did that. Well then let's extend the bus tossing to the not so poor as to be on medicaid women too! Oh joy! We Democrats are always so ready to precapitulate in the hopes that then, certainly then, surely after we surrender on all of these points too, the rightwing will accept us. And they just laugh and demand more.

[Maru Kitteh]

132. I've had two abortions and I have no religious agenda. Perhaps clicking for accuracy then?

I am NOT the OP.

[endarkenment]

157. Which is why when I responded to you I referred to the OP and not you.

"The proposal of the OP is to extend the Hideous Hyde Amendment to any healthcare reform. The OP herself has a religious agenda, which she uncleverly revealed in some of her responses."

Ironic it is that after attacking me for my lack of reading comprehension you then appear to conflate 'OP' with yourself. I would give you the benefit of the doubt here, and conclude that you did not understand the common term 'OP' except that your last sentence precludes that: "I am not the OP". No shit. So what was your point?

[Maru Kitteh]

107. Of course reproductive care is "regular" care. Regular also means consistent.

Regular as in timely physical exams, timely preventative diagnostics, etc.

Right now my daughters and 50 million other Americans have NOTHING, and NO access, which means if they get cancer right now, they get told to go home and die.

[noamnety]

111. Cancer care isn't "regular" care

by your definition.

Let's exclude that too, since it's more like a one time thing.

[Maru Kitteh]

131. Go back, read again. What did I say?

I said: "regular and life-saving medical care" - Pretty sure cancer falls in that category too & the OP included medically necessary including mental health. Even that is more than what we have now. Even that would be a step in the right direction.

Right now as we speak, coverage for medically termed elective abortions is almost non-existent under our current system. I don't think there should be ANY distinction because I don't think it's any of anybodies damn business why ANYBODY has an abortion. I absolutely believe that abortion as well as everything else (and of course mental health) I listed above should be a included in every insurance program and any public option. I will continue to advocate for all of these. I will not sell 50 million people down the river, men, women and children, in doing so.

[Kid Dynamite]

53. I would be happy with less contrived hypotheticals

and more real world action by those who are committed to political change

[Solly Mack]

54. fffffffffffffffffffff

[HughMoran]

58. Your point is well taken

I think medically necessary abortions should be covered, but I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater on healthcare reform based on voluntary abortions alone.

[endarkenment]

59. So those unable to afford this medical procedure should do what?

Those women should be compelled to have a baby they don't want and also can't afford? Why? Why are you signing up to throw poor pregnant women under the bus?

[HughMoran]

61. How do they pay for it now?

I didn't know that all abortions were paid for with public funds now - are they?

[endarkenment]

62. That fat fuck Hyde made it not so.

So no - medicaid leaves poor women out in the cold forced to make awful choices. Great system. For sure let's have Democratic Underground moving the rightwing anti-choice religionist agenda forward.

[HughMoran]

63. Almost everybody here, including me, would prefer that the government pay for abortions

But I'm not going to sacrifice the health of my teenage daughters to make an "all or nothing" stand on paying for abortion when millions of Americans have no healthcare at all, nevermind the ability to pay for an abortion.

[endarkenment]

66. and thus toss the poor women under the bus

and advance the religionist agenda, all so you have yours.

Sorry, I won't support that.

[HughMoran]

67. So millions will remain uninsured and thousands of people's lives put in danger

...to ensure that you can have a voluntary procedure that's not included in Medicare now?

And you consider yourself a compassionate Democrat why?

[endarkenment]

68. I do not accept that abortion is the difference between success and failure

so this is a classic false dichotomy and you are falling for it while the OP is pursuing her own religionist agenda.

[HughMoran]

69. ...but this choice is a very real possibility

...accept it or not, this may very well be the choice we face as to whether we get healthcare or not.

[Gwendolyn]

94. Self-delete. Didn't read post properly.

It was a good rant though. :D

[Ewellian]

135. More than 86% of employer provided

health plans cover routine abortion. I don't ever want a single payer public plan if it means politicians decide what health care I can have instead of me and my doctor.

[mitchtv]

140. Better a politician than a $12.hr

hmo telephone operator

[Ewellian]

141. "hmo telephone operators"

don't make medical decisions and have no power to cover or non-cover any of your medical care.

[BlooInBloo]

64. I would *accept* it for the moment, but wouldn't be *happy* with it...

And would expect to get cracking the next day for all of lady parts stuff to be covered.

[anonymous171]

65. I would. But that is only because I am not rich and cannot afford my own insurance

So I would not willingly block healthcare reform just because a certain procedure wouldn't be covered. I might be in the minority on this, but I don't really care. It seems that the only people who are enraged by this compromise are the types of people who can already afford healthcare.

[noamnety]

82. I oppose any warfare against a class of people

including economic warfare against women.

[uppityperson]

99. Who are you going to have decide if it is "medically necessary"? Have you ever read Roe v Wade?

2 questions for you and a bonus. Bonus: what is Roe v Wade about?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

121. 2 answers + bonus

1:
Medical Review Boards - very similar to the current method used to determine if uninsured people receive procedures. Alternatively, the surgeon general could compile a national review board (made up of all sorts of doctors) to set up uniform guidelines of coverage.

2:
Studied, yes. Read text in entirety, no.

Bonus:
How is Roe v. Wade relevant? Aside from the word "abortion".
No one is talking about outlawing abortion. No one is suggesting prohibiting or even limiting it.
The choice of the abortion will still be between the woman and her doctor - no one is disputing that either.
The only thing in question is, "Do tax dollars pay indiscriminately pay for abortions."

And even then many people agree that an abortion performed with valid medical necessity should be covered under healthcare.
Many even suggest adding poverty to the list of qualifying healthcare covered abortions.

There's three parties I see here. Some people saying "NONE", some saying "ALL" and alot of people willing to meet in the middle ground to cover medically-recommended abortions. If healthcare stalls because either extreme is unwilling to meet in the middle, then that is pretty shameful.

[lefthandedlefty]

106. I don`t think it should cover anything elective

[fascisthunter]

115. this reads as anti-choice

from your argument you base your opinion on the fact that you disagree with abortions in general, and even compare it to cosmetic surgery, which also means you don't think it is a critical medical procedure. This is nothing more than an attempt to paint abortion as cosmetic...

I'm surprised this post is actually up. Very offensive to those who had the procedure no doubt...

[Hepburn]

120. +1...n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

123. Elective abortions are not critical medical proceedures.

There are certainly abortions that are medically reccomended for a number of reasons. I think the people that get thier panties in a twist about taxpayer funded abortions are those that don't want to pay for the people that just decide "they don't want the baby".

While the physical proceedure is identical, an elective abortion and abortion for medical reasoning are not the same.

[Lars39]

126. Every single pregnancy can end in death or permenent injury.

Every single one.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

130. And that is the risk inherent in pregnancy.

However, doctors do not recommend their pregnant patients abort every single baby, now do they?
Why? Because pregnancy (and innumerable other things/conditions) have some risk involved. Heck, everything you do in life has some risk.
The point is that people talking about An abortion done for medical risk prevention mean one in which the pregnancy poses substantially more risk than a normal pregnancy.
Key words: SUBSTANTIALLY MORE RISK THAN A NORMAL PREGNANCY

Also, you are completely that abortions, even legal, put a tremendous amount of stress on the body and can often be very dangerous fro the mother as well.
If you are really going to play the "but all pregnancies can be dangerous" card... then at least mention the dangers of abortion.

An overall rate of 29.1 complications per 1,000 procedures was observed, with a rate of 27.4 for abortions performed by physician assistants and 30.8 for physicians. The incidence of immediate complications was 6.1 per 1,000 procedures; delayed complication incidence was 23.2 per 1,000 procedures. Overall complication rates varied according to operative procedure used.

[Lars39]

142. I'm betting you won't ever have to risk your life with a pregnancy.

Fookin males who whine like little babies if their pecker so much as gets threatened, yet you oh so cavalierly expect a woman to go thru pregnancy and childbirth even if she isn't willing. Fuck you. Sideways.

[mwooldri]

138. and every time I drive my car it can end in death or permanent injury.

IMO a medically necessary abortion pretty much covers all of them. To me, abortion *is* a mental health issue as well as a physical health issue, and even elective abortions will have pyschological issues surrounding it.

There's dangers in lots of things - but abortions are medical issues, and if two doctors agree that an abortion is in the best interests of the patient, then healthcare should cover the cost. Healthcare should also cover lots of other things: reproductive health, contraception for men and women, sex ed in schools and colleges (screw this abstinence only thing, people are still going to have sex anyway), sterilization by approved medical means, and lots of other stuff I can't think of. For those in poverty who become pregnant and want the child, support must be available to the family (there is today but could be more IMO). For those in poverty who don't want the child and the patient can't find two doctors who says it's medically necessary then charities like Planned Parenthood can fill the void and assist. Women must should always have the right to abort for any reason legally... but as a society we need to be promoting responsible family planning FIRST, making contraception freely available, making sterilization freely available, and proper sex education in schools, colleges and our communities, yes, do a class in High School and give them a test which affects their GPA... no need for anyone to flunk sex ed.

This is my final post on this subject.

Mark.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

124. Yes, it sounds like a good deal

Excluding non-medically necessary abortions would be stupid, but as long as reasonably-priced abortions were legal and available in medical settings, the trade-off is financially sound.

No families driven into poverty by crushing medical debt? Yes, good idea. I wish we had that.

[tbyg52]

127. >>as long as reasonably-priced abortions were legal and available in medical settings

"Available," maybe, but not *easily* available in a lot of cases, not for non-rich people, anyway. And rich people had no trouble getting abortions even *before* Roe v. Wade.

[Cleita]

128. All abortions are necessary even if not for biological reasons. No woman

makes this decision unless she has reasons, whether, medical, economic or societal for doing this. The only reason I could see for not covering medical care is for cosmetic reasons like removing benign skin tags and warts.

[donco6]

129. No, because there's no logical reason to exclude them.

And once you head down the road of irrationality, you never know where you'll end up.

[mwooldri]

133. If the medically necessary includes mental health...

... then it pretty much covers everything abortion wise. Any two doctors can easily concur that a pregnancy termination at any stage would be best for the mental health of anyone, and any intelligent woman can easily concoct it if it had to come to it (present oneself to a mental health hospital, states she is suicidal over the pregnancy, demand an abortion or she'll attempt suicide). Horrible way to do it, it's the loophole that would keep abortions for everyone.

Also define non medically necessary procedures? I can think of three that aren't strictly medically necessary in the physical sense but in the mental health sense do make perfect sense: breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, micropenis correction, ear reconstruction... Even regular breast implants should be covered - not just for the asking of course but because there's a good health reason to do so (usually mental health).

[JustAnotherGen]

134. Yes

As long as abortion remains legal. I've had one, cost $250. I paid cash. But it was legal in 1994 in NY State.

I would ALSO support this as long as: BIRTH CONTROL ON DEMAND FOR ANY WOMAN/CHILD WHO CAN HAVE A CHILD IS GIVEN THE BIRTH CONTROL OF HER CHOICE . . .ON Demand!

If any 13 year old who has periods can walk into a doctors office and get birth control without ANYONE's additional consent in this 'imaginary' health care plan - I'm okay with it not covering abortion.

Overall - free, unfettered access to Birth Control could potentially drive the number of abortions down. Sure - 'oops' happen - but the best way to drive down the oops is diaphrams, depo, bc pills, condoms (add disease to that list). Are we talking about overALL women's health?

And in this health care plan - do we ALSO make it the FEDERAL LAW of the land that Abortion Protesters cannot be within 10 miles of a Planned Parenthood Clinic?

And another thing in this plan - does this money/capability go to Planned Parenthood? So that they can offer all of their other services at no cost - thus driving down the cost of an abortion? I.E. Help them out on prevention so they can provide abortions cheaper to those for whom the B.C. fails?


Depends on what's in this plan I guess . . .

[NoSheep]

146. I paid for mine. It was well worth it.

Shocked much?

It was legal..I may have had to risk my life if it hadn't been. Do you need to know why? I don't think so.

[Prism]

150. If a woman wants it, it's medically necessary.

Period, end of debate. As soon as the choice is made, the medical care for it must follow.

[Vinca]

158. If men will give up the non-medically necessary use of Viagra,

I'll give it some thought. Nonreconstructive plastic surgery should not be covered and that's about it. If I want my basset hound eyes done, it would be on me.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

159. "non-medically necessary use of Viagra"? Is there any other kind?

I'm not sure what would be a "medically necessary" use. It seems like a legal recreational drug. Unless it's to help cure depression, in which case, woohoo!

However, if a plan would cover 99% of medical expenses (as stated in the OP), but the plan covered abortions and didn't cover Viagra and its clones, it still sounds like a good plan.

Families would not be driven destitute by medical bills. And some folks would have to pay retail for Viagra. Again, an excellent trade-off.

[Vinca]

160. Actually, Viagra was discovered by accident when it was given

to men with blood pressure problems (I think) and they found themselves suddenly studly.

[cornermouse]

163. I am blown away by the topic and some of the replies.

I thought that the democratic party stood solidly for the right to privacy or abortion. Was I wrong?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

164. Not very wrong, but the OP question wasn't about Roe v Wade

If all medical procedures, drugs, etc, were covered 99%, except elective abortions which would be 100% out-of-pocket, would that be acceptable?

That's how I read the OP, anyway.

I didn't read "abortion rights" into the question.

[cornermouse]

165. Define elective abortions.

Then define how the repubs define elective abortions.

You're splitting hairs.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

166. I'm not sure how a repub defines abortions...

But I would define as below.

A medically relevant abortion is an abortion in which the female wants to terminate a pregnancy where:
- the mother is a victim of rape, incest, or other sexual crime.
- elevated risk of injury or death for the mother, fetus or both exists in relative excess compared to a healthy pregnancy
- evidence exists that the child born will suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
- mental instability which questions the maternal abilities exists or the mother's mental health may be at jeopardy if pregnancy continues.
- absent of the conditions above, the doctor feels that circumstances classify the procedure as a medically relevant and/or necessary.

An elective abortion is one which does not classify as medically necessary.

IMO, if adequate contraceptive is available freely and ubiquitously then elective abortion should be paid for out of pocket, with full coverage provided to people living at/below the poverty threshold. Procedure price fixing should also be used to ensure the cost consistency of non-qualifying abortions.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

171. My definition: Elective = Choice

Don't know how Republicans define "elective".

What's your definition?

[cornermouse]

173. If a woman chooses to have an abortion

whether due to health reasons, financial, reasons, or mental reasons, she should be shown enough respect to be able to get the abortion.

[HughMoran]

169. You can't read

If you had spent 2 minutes reading, you'd realize this thread has nothing to do with Roe vs Wade and everything to do with a particular benefit in a government run healthcare plan.

[mainegreen]

172. What, compared to overpriced healthcare that covers nothing, or none at all? D'uh, of course.

Going up part way is still going up.

Wars aren't won in single victories, and anyone who says other is a terrible strategist.