Texas passes bill to require women pay extra for abortion access in health plans

[workinclasszero]

Texas passes bill to require women pay extra for abortion access in health plans
By Ray Downs Aug. 10, 2017 at 2:39 AM

Aug. 10 (UPI) -- Texas lawmakers this week approved a bill that would require women to pay a separate health insurance premium to get coverage for elective abortions.

The bill will not allow exemptions for cases of fetal abnormalities, rape or incest, reported the Texas Tribune. It passed on a 95-51 vote Tuesday.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/08/10/Texas-passes-bill-to-require-women-pay-extra-for-abortion-access-in-health-plans/8251502346195/

[Fresh_Start]

1. Since this is punishing people for legal activities which they disapprove of

they should have the same thing for smoking, alcohol, drugs, obesity, high-risk activities (e.g., rock climbing and use of power tools like chainsaws) and guns.

If you participate in any of those, you should pay extra since no one else should be paying if you need medical treatment due to either of those.

[workinclasszero]

2. Yeah try to purpose a soda tax

And watch the reich wing lose their sugar fueled tiny minds!

[gratuitous]

3. Will men pay extra for prostate health coverage?

Or for their boner-in-a-bottle pills?

[moda253]

4. Currently boner in a bottle pills

are usually not covered in most medical plans. That might change as the patents are about to expire shortly. And as much as it is funny to mock BIB pills it usually is indicative of a much more serious issue that the person is experiencing.

This TX bill is a damned evil joke, but I don't get the reversal that would affect many people that likely share the same viewpoints as you do. IT's how they keep us fighting amongst ourselves.

[gratuitous]

5. I'm just advocating for equal treatment under the law

Whether Viagra or Cialis or any other erectile dysfunction pharamaceuticals are covered by any particular health insurance plan varies from plan to plan but they are covered by quite a number of them.

Yes, I'm sure that all prescription pharmaceuticals are serious treatment for serious issues experienced by patients. The advertisement for those pharmaceuticals, however, don't make a whole lot of sense: Why are the companies advertising these very serious pharmaceuticals (sometimes in considerably less-than-serious advertisements) directly to consumers who can't go out and buy them, don't have the medical training or expertise to know whether they are appropriate for their very serious medical issue, and spend three-fourths of their air time warning against potential side effects up to and including death? Wouldn't the cost of these very serious pharmaceuticals be considerably lower if they weren't burdened with a relentless advertising campaign to the general public on many of the highest-cost network and cable programs? Because that's where my beef is with this legislation, not with any individual who requires treatment for a predominantly male prescription of exclusively male health issue such as prostate treatment.

[LanternWaste]

7. It also accurately illustrates and compares the inherent biases within the insurance companies.

" IT's how they keep us fighting amongst (sic) ourselves...."

It also accurately illustrates and compares an inherent bias within the insurance companies.

And though I see few Democrats "fighting" among ourselves over this particular aspect of the insurance industry, I'm quite confident you'll supply us with objective evidence to support that allegation.

[Orrex]

8. No, because men are the natural default biology

Adam preceded Eve, ergo... SCIENCE!

[Gothmog]

6. It is tough living in Texas at times