Should Public Health Care Include Abortion?

[orleans]

should women's health care be all inclusive or should abortion be excluded?

i have a definite opinion on this matter, but i don't want to skew the poll by expressing my opinion.

[MercutioATC]

1. Yes, if for medical necessity. Otherwise, no.

The same standard as other surgical procedures such as plastic surgery. If to correct a deformity or injury, it's covered. If not, it's not.

The valid exception I see to this standard is voluntary sterilization (vasectomy or tubes tied). Otherwise, elective procedures shouldn't be covered.

[madfloridian]

2. I very much disagree.

It should be between her and her doctor.

[MercutioATC]

5. The decision whether or not to abort is absolutely between her and her doctor.

The decision as to who pays for it is not.


An abortion for other than medically necessary reasons is an elective procedure.

[lindisfarne]

Abortion saves the insurer money. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

137. Yes it does. Abortion is safer and WAY cheaper than birth.

If the woman does not want to carry the fetus to term abortion in the first trimester at least should be paid for by any health plan interested in fiscal prudence.

[Skittles]

8. WTF are you smoking?

[MercutioATC]

10. So it's NOT an elective procedure?

I'm in no way saying that the right to have an abortion should be denied...but unless it's medically necessary, it's an elective procedure.

[Skittles]

21. comparing 18 years of raising a child to plastic surgery is unbelievable

let's take it further and deny heart operations for people who ate too much crap and failed to exercise, people who get injured participating in extreme sports, people with lung cancer related to smoking.......the list goes on and on, doesn't it?

[MercutioATC]

48. IS an abortion that's not medically necessary an elective surgery or not?

I contend that it is.

I'm not "comparing" raising a child to cosmetic surgery, I'm stating that both an abortion that's not medically necessary and a liposuction procedure that's not medically necessary are both elective procedures.

Both may be the choice of the patient and both may improve the patient's health and quality of life, but both are also elective procedures.

[Lars39]

117. The risk of death or permenent injury is present with every single pregnancy.

Every single one. That puts every abortion into the medically necessary category if that is what the woman and her doctor decides.

[Iris]

129. no. Not for a woman who believes she needs one.

[donheld]

135. So people with money get to chose people without don't

How very republican of you.

[aquart]

12. Because you want to adopt?

Unless birth is in serious decline, we don't want our people over-producing children. Not when we're facing global climate change famine.

Forcing women to have children they don't want automatically forces an increase in all social services, police, fire, sanitation overtime when they have to look for the tiny bodies. It's penny wise and pound foolish.

But if you plan to take care of them all, then there's no more to be said.

[MercutioATC]

13. Nobody is "forcing women to have children".

The decision is a woman's to make (much as the decision whether to have non-necessary cosmetic surgery is her's to make).

...that doesn't mean that it's an insurer's responsibility to pay for it.

[leftstreet]

14. Should birth control be covered?

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that it shouldn't be covered

Birth control should be be provided FREE OF CHARGE to anyone who doesn't want to have children.

On the other hand, we don't subsidize those who CHOOSE to drive drunk, why should we be made to subsidize those who choose to have unprotected sex? The public at large shouldn't be forced to pay the tab when two individuals decide to take a risk in the "heat of the moment" and one winds up pregnant. At some point, individuals need to be held accountable for their actions.

I'd fully support a law that forced the male half to pay for the abortion if the female half decided that's what she wanted. What I wouldn't endorse is making the public pay for the bad decision made by both of them. Screw the Sloe Gin and Seven Up. Screw the Southern Comfort and Coke. Screw the drive-in movie. Buy a fucking rubber instead.

[leftstreet]

23. So you don't consider abortion a form of birth control?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

32. Abortion is a form of birth control, but most methods of birth control

prevent rather than terminate a pregnancy. And most Americans would prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies to reduce the number of abortions.

[uppityperson]

25. "why should we be made to subsidize those who choose to have unprotected sex?" wtf?

Are you seriously saying a woman must prove she had a contraceptive failure to get an abortion?

Or are you seriously saying that the only women who get abortions are those who had unprotected sex?

Sluts, aren't they.
Seriously?

[Skittles]

26. disgusting, isn't it?

like something a fucking repuke would say :puke:

[MercutioATC]

50. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the weak.

If I had a nickel for every time somebody somebody responded to a statement here at DU by simply dismissing the poster (or the view) as "right wing" or "repuke" or "freeper" or "troll" instead of actually engaging in an intelligent dialog, I'd retire tomorrow.

You may not agree with the position, but it's a valid viewpoint and name-calling is childish.

[Skittles]

138. are you kidding?

you're making morality a prerequisite for medical care and balking when someone points out that is a REPUKE platform?

[uppityperson]

156. This is a valid viewpoint? Why has that poster done a hit and run?

"why should we be made to subsidize those who choose to have unprotected sex?" wtf?

Are you seriously saying a woman must prove she had a contraceptive failure to get an abortion?

Or are you seriously saying that the only women who get abortions are those who had unprotected sex?

Sluts, aren't they.
Seriously?

ps.I notice the poster I asked that of never replied to me or any of the others replying to him

[FlyingSquirrel]

44. Devil's advocate here, but no birth control method is 100% effective

So what if they did what you suggested and still got pregnant? How could it be proven either way?

[orleans]

145. CAMERAS! apparently some people here would demand to have

cameras in the bedroom in order to prove that a condom broke--otherwise it would only be the pregnant woman's word against...a system that doesn't give a rats ass about her.

my god!

[LeftyMom]

101. Every form of birth control has a failure rate, you know.

Even with perfect use, some accidental pregnancies will result.

[Gwendolyn]

146. What you propose is beyond impractical.

And you, like many others, presume that YOU will be the sole contributer to the healthcare system and that your dollars are going to take care of all those people you deem unworthy of your largesse. It's a common viewpoint as people see things subjectively. You totally forget about the millions of women who will pay into the system and simply want their fair share of healthcare. The healthcare they've paid for with THEIR dollars.

[orleans]

18. so, the idea that a woman can't afford an abortion doesn't factor in?

or that she can't afford an abortion so she might as well have the kid because there are public aid programs that can at least help out with that to a degree?

"public" health should be made available to everyone--regardless of their status (which includes the ability to pay out of pocket for an abortion).

(getting an abortion is not a frivolous decision: i think i'll get my nails done at noon and after that i should have time for the abortion--or a vanity/"cosmetic" decision: think i'll get a nose job, face lift and oh, yeah, i'd better go get that abortion.)

just because blue cross won't cover this doesn't mean that a public insurance shouldn't include this in the coverage.

[uppityperson]

30. Damn straight! and if the male wanted her to have the abortion she couldn't afford, he should not be

held responsible for any sort of child support either! That'll teach those sluts to watch their Ps and Qs!

:sarcasm: just in case.

They are coming out of the woodwork again.

[MercutioATC]

54. So what do we do with an obese man who would benefit from liposuction?

It's not medically necessary, but it would improve his health and quality of life.

Do we pay for it, or should he exercise some personal responsibility and either adjust his behavior or exercise his choice to have the procedure...but pay for it himself?

[blondeatlast]

157. Liposuction can be medically neccessary, so can an endometrial ablation,

so can abortion. All are considered "elective," but insurance companies pay for them if there is medical necessity. Without an EA, I would have bled to death during my next period. My insurance paid for it with simply a call from my PC physician.

Who the hell are you to decide for my doctor?

[uppityperson]

29. an abortion is comperable to cosmetic surgery? Whoah.

Are you related to the person who is saying the same thing, but in a not as nice way, over in Choice forum?

Cosmetic abortions. Wild.

And how do you propose to make sure that any health care given falls within your moral standards?

[MercutioATC]

51. In that both an abortion and a cosmetic surgery that are not medically necessary are both elective?

Yes.

...and that's not ME saying that, it's the standard of what it "elective" and what's not.

[JTFrog]

56. The reason is none of YOUR fucking business. One of many flaws in your illogical rantings is you

don't even account for rape victims. Nobody is forcing women to have children? That is wrong in so many ways all I can say is: Keep your fucking hands off our uteruses and your bullshit male logic to yourself.

[MercutioATC]

57. Take a deep breath.

The issues of rape and incest weren't even addressed here. (I fully support insured procedures for both, if desired).

The reason IS my business (and everybody else's) if the plan is to publicly fund it. Like it or not, both males and females are going to weigh in on the funding issue...and that is their right.

[JTFrog]

58. No it's not. Just like the reason for me seeking psychiatric help is to be funded and NONE OF YOUR

FUCKING BUSINESS.

Your argument is bullshit.

[MercutioATC]

60. It certainly is, if everybody is expected to pay for it.

If we lived in a world of unlimited resources, I'd agree with you.

We don't.


The vast majority of health care plans have guidelines and limits on the amount of psychiatric care that's covered. This may not be ideal, but it's necessary.

[JTFrog]

63. Bullshit. A big huge steaming pile of it too.

You can't use the cop out that it's what the corporate health cares want when you stated clearly in your first post that it is what YOU want.

[MercutioATC]

66. You keep changing the argument, but I'll try to roll with it.

My contention is based on what it I believe is equitable, being mindful of the financial realities.

Since I am one of the people who will be taxed to provide these benefits (and even if I wasn't, the level of benefits effect everybody in that how we pay for them will have an impact on the economy) yes, this IS what I want...and that coincides (in this individual case) both with what I believe is best for the general public and private insurance companies.

[JTFrog]

71. And so women must once again suffer the price for a male's view of "equitable"?

Awesome.

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

73. I know many women who hold the same view.

If you disagree, do so on the merits of the argument...not the gender of the speaker.

I invite you to explain to me how we can afford unlimited psychiatric (and abortion) benefits to anybody who asks for them.

[JTFrog]

76. I invite you to leave my uterus AND my mental health to ME and MY DOCTORS.

Not me and MY INSURANCE company or ME and YOU.

Got that part yet? That is THE LAW as it stands. You can deal with that or not. You're the realist. :eyes:

Now, how do we afford it? How do we afford NOT making unlimited psychiatric (and abortion) benefits available to those who ask for them? We aren't talking plastic surgery or spa visits here in your little world of financial responsibility.

THE POINT IS TO AVOID EVER HAVING TO HAVE ANOTHER BACK ALLEY ABORTION IN THIS COUNTRY AGAIN. EVER.

Got that? Do I really need to post the photo here for emphasis?

:mad:

[MercutioATC]

80. I hereby leave your uterus and your mental health to you and your doctor.

...and you'll kindly leave my checkbook to me.

Nobody is arguing your right to make medical decisions without interference, I fully support that...as does nearly everybody here.


However, If you expect medical procedures to be publicly subsidized, I think it's reasonable to have some standards. Despite your claims, this is NOT about choice. It's about financial responsibility...and nobody should be financially responsible for the random whims of another.

We may disagree on where the lines should be drawn, but limits are necessary...and you seem to be cleiming a right to unlimited healthcare.

[JTFrog]

81. How much savings is a woman's life worth to you? n/t

[MercutioATC]

82. I've already stated my support for coverage for medically-necessary abortions.

Any other questions?

[JTFrog]

87. I give.

This subject is too personal for me.

I'm bowing out.

I don't agree with you. Never will.

Good luck with your argument.

[MercutioATC]

89. There's no more need for a "back-alley" abortion than there is for a "back-alley" liposuction.

Both are legal. Back alleys aren't necessary.

[JTFrog]

91. It's just one more step toward enforcing abortion as a taboo medical procedure.

If you really don't see where you're thinking is going...

like I said above, I give.

[Robb]

90. Then we'll have to define "poor," and find a way to help them.

It's going to be a necessarily complicated system.

Edited to add: I hope you didn't leave because you felt ganged up on. I think we're standing on the bank of the same river, if you will. :hi:

[JTFrog]

92. No, I just got too emotionally involved.

Thanks.

:hi:

[Control-Z]

140. This discussion

is making me emotional too, and I haven't even participated yet. I've only read the replies. These people, (and it's always just a few, usually men, who could never be in the position in the first place, who scream the loudest) are either callus and uncaring, or simply refuse to imagine being in another's shoes. They always have a "better than", "know it all" attitude.

The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are well known and should be enough to open any progressive's eyes, yet they still refuse (that is assuming they are progressives to begin with, which is doubtful).

Anti-choicers never give up, and always refuse to understand anything outside their own POV.

[MercutioATC]

93. I see you've edited. I didn't mean to make it too personal.

I debate based on principles. I agree that we'll probably always disagree, but regardless of what I perceive as the logical argument, my intention was never to cause any personal distress.


Peace

[Gwendolyn]

94. Your argument is skewed though.

Under a single payer system, everyone gets to use it as often as they like, and everyone is covered. The person who goes to see the doctor for every pimple or cough is much more taxing on the system than the woman who sees hers once a year, and then one day requires an abortion. All of the averages are taken into account when figuring out health care budgets. Abortions in Canada are provided for in a no frills manner, so it's not like the women are being treated to spa day at the hospital. Either you cover everybody, or no one. Under your logic, it would make more sense to put a cap on how many times a year you get to see the doc for a pimple or tummy ache.

[MercutioATC]

97. Your definition of "single-payer" and mine differ.

"Single-payer" is a method of payment for coverage, not a licence to use health care coverage "as often as they like".

You cover everybody, but you don't cover everybody's whim. Without reasonable standards, there's no way to make the system tenable.

[Gwendolyn]

103. What I described is the way it works in every single payer country.

Your pimple might be the early signs of cancer. A cough may be indicative of pneumonia. Or, a pimple could be just a pimple.

Your vision of single payer is simply the same old, same old, under a different name. Somebody tells you whether or not you can see a doctor and be covered for it.

[Gwendolyn]

114. I'm also going to add that the woman who needs the abortion has already paid for it herself.

That's the thing about single payer. Everyone pays. Ostensibly you're buying your own healthcare and the government is simply there to ensure that you won't squander away this money on something else, by automatically taking it out of your employment taxes, as well as taxing a little out of every purchase you make at the store. The surplus of taxes collected pays for the healthcare of the poor.

So, the woman who needs an abortion HAS already contributed towards payment of the procedure. I think people just can't wrap their heads around that.

It's the same mentality of the repubs who think single payer will force them to pay for everyone but themselves. That is not so. You're paying for your own healthcare.

Edited to add: Under single payer, even the poor and those who don't work for whatever reason, are STILL contributing to their own healthcare with every purchase they make.

[me b zola]

131. "limited resources"

If your argument is limited resources than we should cut back on prostate exams & treatment. If that statement sounds idiotic & bigoted then you may begin to understand how idiotic and bigoted your position on women's health care is.

[orleans]

148. how much, exactly, *would* you be taxed in order to include abortion

in a public health plan? one quarter of a cent every year? one sixteenth of a cent? one fiftieth of a cent?

no one is asking you be the *one and only* "sponsor" of an abortion.

and the rate that unwanted children tax the system--public aid, food stamps, psychological counseling for abused children, emergency room visits, public aid dental, not to mention various facets dealing with schools/lunch programs/special ed buses/classes/aids, recreation programs for special needs or low income families/public housing, etc...

looks like you certainly don't believe in preventative care if you're more than willing to fork out the money to help fund all this other business but can't find the incentive to do the right thing from the beginning.

yes, you will be "one of the people who will be taxed to provide these benefits" only the benefits you'll be providing will go on for years and years rather than a single surgical procedure.

[GodlessBiker]

17. Why limit your "valid exception" to sterilization? Why is that elective procedure...

given a financial preference over abortion, which is another family planning procedure?

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. That's a really interesting point to explore.

I do see what you are saying, but it opens an weird can of worms. I think we can all agree that abortions which are medically necessary should be performed, as arising sicknesses should be treated. However can pregnancy be defined as a sickness? With this, you make the case that its not, therefore its an elective procedure, just as "small breasts" is not an illness which requires treatment through breast augmentation. But we sense that abortion is a different matter than this kind of elective procedure. So basically what we end up with is defining unwanted pregnancies as an illness, similar to how we define "unwanted piercings" (puncture wounds) as medical injuries, while intentional piercings are considered medically safe body modification.

The interesting thing is that any functional health plan needs to focus on injury/illness prevention, so prevention of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions, actually becomes a major focus for the health plan, something which I wouldn't think of as a medical role.

[Gormy Cuss]

35. Voluntary sterilization isn't medically necessary, therefore it shouldn't be funded either.

The only reason abortion is held to a different standard is that some people want to impose their own moral code on women in spite of established law.

Perhaps you don't remember when health insurance plans routinely excluded coverage for birth control pills, IUDs, and other contraceptives exactly on the basis that they weren't medically necessary.

[csziggy]

38. OK, so you do not believe that men should get Viagra?

Because that is elective and not medically required so why should it and similar drugs be covered?

[MercutioATC]

53. ED drugs should NOT be covered.

The ability to achieve an erection, while desirable, is NOT medically necessary.

[csziggy]

133. Yes, but I can remember when they were covered by private insurance and birth control was not

If I remember correctly, it took a court decision to change that.

There are a lot of procedures and medical choices that may not be essential to life but are needed for the mental and physical well being of the patient. Those choices should be left to the patient and their doctor. And if given access to reliable birth control, I believe most women would need access to abortion very rarely. Banning abortion, making it difficult to get, or cutting the coverage of it will put women and their health care providers in a position that will make rational decisions more difficult.

I am old enough that I was of child bearing age when abortion was illegal and I knew women who had to make that choice. But since they could not sit down with their doctors and have medical consultations without the worry that those discussions would have to delve into illegal possibilities, many of the women I knew panicked, did not talk to their doctors and, left the state and country to get procedures that were illegal and dangerous. Fortunately, the women I knew that made that decision did not suffer adverse results of infection, infertility or death, but they certainly risked them.

I am worried that we will return to those days - it is already difficult to find abortion providers in some areas. Rather than remaining impartial medical consultants, some doctors and medical professionals now have returned to the old days of monitoring the morals of their patients by not assisting them in finding access to the procedures the women want. Women are being relegated to the role of having to fight for procedures that are legal and that should be accessible through any medical facility. The cost and delay of locating a facility is prohibitive and makes a difficult decision even worse.

In the case of women who make the decision because of medical reasons, delay and travel can endanger them even more than the pregnancy that is already dangerous - just because a bunch of religious fanatics are forcing their narrow views on the rest of the country. And limiting what women's reproductive rights healthcare will cover WILL affect their choices, most likely negatively.

Personally, I don't believe that any couple should have more than two children - but I would no more think of restricting their right to pump out small herds of rug rats than I would restrict their right to speak. I just wish the religious whackos would stay out of other people's lives in the same way. They can express their point of view, just don't make our government enforce it.

[armyowalgreens]

40. Non-emergency abortion isn't just any old elective procedure.

The woman is carrying a god damn parasite inside of her. How does that stack up against a nip and tuck?

If someone doesn't get a nose job, the world goes on just like it always has. But if someone cannot get an abortion and doesn't want the child, we now have an orphan. Multiply that enough times, and we have thousands of unwanted and abused children.


What a very ignorant thing to say.

[MercutioATC]

52. Some things, we NEED. Some things we WANT.

They're different standards...just as medically-necessary surgery and elective surgery have different standards.

It may not be "any old elective procedure", but an abortion that's not medically necessary IS, by definition, an elective procedure.

[GodlessBiker]

86. So is sterilization, but you fund that.

[armyowalgreens]

155. Okay. Then the health care plan should cover elective surgeries.

Problem solved. If you want to argument semantics, go somewhere else.

You seem to have this idea that if a surgery is not to save someones life, it is unnecessary. Tell that to a burn victim that wants nothing more than to have a nose and eye lids.

You are living in a very black and white world. The real world is covered in grey.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. Under your rubric, medical care while giving birth shouldn't be covered.

After all, the woman got pregnant by choice. Why should we taxpayers have to fund the consequences of her decision?

[MercutioATC]

107. Untrue; There is a standard for "medically necessary".

Pregnancy and resultant birthing is covered under "medical necessity".

The reverse corollary claim based on your statement would be "The kid rode a skateboard by choice. We shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of his decision"...which is clearly not the accepted standard fore coverage.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. So, birthing is a medical necessity, but abortion isn't. Please explain the difference.

Both are medical procedures effectively doing the same thing.

What's the difference?

[Telly Savalas]

151. What's the basis for the standard?

When a women becomes pregnant, there are pretty much three ways to conclude the pregnancy: vaginal delivery, c-section, or abortion. It seems rather arbitrary to decree the first two as medically necessary, but not the third.

On edit: sorry for basically repeating Tierra's argument. I need to be more alert when reading the thread.

[NanceGreggs]

3. Yes ...

... the only criteria being that the woman has chosen the procedure. Her reasons for doing so are no one else's fuckin' business.

(for me and D)

[madfloridian]

7. Exactly right. The reasons are her own.

No government butting in.

[csziggy]

39. Yes - it is something that is between a woman and her doctor

Many of the "pro-life" crowd define birth control as abortions, so if one form is prohibited, it will only be a matter of time before all forms of birth control and rational family planning is eliminated from the coverage.

The same forces that are advertising against the public option for health coverage are the same ones that want to interfere with the choices that should only be between a woman and her doctor. If the political climate changed and public option health coverage prohibited insurance payments for Viagra or mandated vasectomies for men under certain conditions, there would be an outcry that would bring down the Capital Building. But few dare to complain when the politicians want to interfere with women's control of their own bodies.

[thesquanderer]

78. Insurance and birth control? it's not all about sexism

Insurance doesn't cover condoms, either, you know. (Okay, men don't get pregnant, but they can certainly "suffer the consequences" of an unwanted pregnancy in other ways, including 18 years of child support.)

[csziggy]

134. Condoms are not a prescription item so that is not relevant

To make it even, make birth control an over the counter drug so doctors and pharmacies are not involved. I really do not advocate that since birth control hormones are far too tricky to be over the counter drugs. There are few methods of birth control for women that are not prescription dispensed and those have fairly high rates of failure, as do condoms. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm)

Although some men do step up and support their unplanned children, far more do not, many resent it, and many men even resent supporting their "planned" children. Look at the statistics for families with children living at poverty level - single women with children are disproportionately represented.

Our country is doing an abysmal job of educating our young people on family planning, birth control, and the choices that are legally available. No, I don't think that abortion should be at the top of the list of the choices, but it should not be completely removed, either.

The move to eliminate abortion as one of a range of medical choices for women is sexist. There is no procedure for men that will be banned from consideration for coverage. Abortion is strictly a choice that women must make - sure, their significant other can be involved but the women must make the final decision. Because this primarily affect women, it is sexist to pick this one procedure to be denied.

I'd compare it to the situation of the religious cult that does not believe in operations had control - how would you like it if they forced denial of an appendectomy when you were suffering from a burst appendix? Or refused a bypass for heart problems? No one wants their extreme views to control all citizens' lives - why is a minority sect being allowed to control women's lives?

[babylonsister]

4. Yes. It's the law. Period. nt

[handmade34]

6. Yes. I am sad that there is even a question about it.

dental too.

[orleans]

9. dental too. (i feel like i'm saying "toto too"). yes. dental should be included too. n/t

[TexasObserver]

11. Yes, without question.

[The Straight Story]

15. If I choose to have something versus needing it, should you pay for it?

:shrug:

[orleans]

19. and along that line...

just because you need something why should i have to pay for it or provide it for you?

on edit: define "need" (does "need" only come into play when the choice is life or death? or can "need" encompass more than the black and white of a situation?)

[apocalypsehow]

16. Yes, of course. You do realize that pushing against open doors comes off as boorish, don't you?

:shrug:

[frog92969]

24. 6.8 billion people and growing fast.

I think even the bearded sky man would understand the urgency.

That's a yes.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Yes, I think human health care should be all inclusive. nt

[Quantess]

28. You know what, if the Public Health Care Package omits abortion it will...

still be a step toward the best direction. 2 steps forward, one step back, that sort of thing.

I am definitely in favor of women of all socio-economic-status (SES) levels being able to make their own reproductive choices. I am about as pro-choice as you can find.

In the best possible scenario, abortion funding will be written into the bill, but when it comes down to the vote, it may not be feasible.

Edit to say I voted Yes.

[pnwmom]

31. I agree. In the broad scheme of things, women would be far better off with

a solid health care plan including a public option -- even if the cost of getting that passed means letting go of an insistence on coverage of elective abortions.

[Oeditpus Rex]

33. I voted yes, but I'd like an asterisk on it

Anyone who tries to get a health-care bill passed will run into enormous backlash if it includes coverage for abortion at all, let alone elective abortion. In addition to reproductive rights and what should be covered, we need to consider the political realities of such an emotionally charged issue.

[sandnsea]

34. It'll be just like the law has it now

I think abortion should be fully funded right now, but it isn't. I can't figure out why anybody would think we'd suddenly get services we don't get now.

[cboy4]

36. Yes, In all cases. It should be completely covered.

[juajen]

37. Also, voluntary sterilization, but not reversals. We are the world,

and the world has a really god awful population problem; not to mention the humanitarian thing, you know, the amazing number of girls and women that are taken advantage of by relatives and strangers. Abortion for them should be easy and free.

[tomm2thumbs]

41. in some ways, this is what happened to Don't Ask Don't Tell... in that

Clinton wanted to get something important done by allowing gays to serve their country in the military, he settled for something completely different that had 'strings attached' and in the long run it was reversed, but caused havoc for years.

It could be that in order to advance the process forward, they will create similar 'strings' that make it palatable to passing for conservatives, but time will eventually move towards funding of all women's health care especially if the woman's life is at risk. However, I would hope there would be a private funding support that would step in temporarily to fund any such procedures for anyone requesting them. We have such a screwed up far right religious nut-job mentality in so many areas of the country that they do hold some power over critical votes which is simply a brutal reality. Of course these are the same folks who preach 'no drinking' and then don a disguise to buy liquor - or say 'marriage is sacred' and then fly off to lay an Argentinian or seek some sexual excitement in a men's room.

This is legislative triage - attack the main issue and then go back and adjust the others after the fact.

[FlyingSquirrel]

42. When this actually becomes an issue debated daily in the MSM

...it will be a good day because it will mean that Public Health Care is a near-certainty.

My actual opinion, though, is that the issue is a bit more nuanced, your poll would include any kind of legal abortion whether purely elective (without any medical reason or rape/incest etc.) or not, and I assume you're talking about right from the get-go.

Is abortion covered now by ANY policy? I'm a bit ignorant of these things. I know that my own damn policy doesn't even cover a vasectomy, found that out AFTER the fact... I keep forgetting to check with the stupid insurance company on things in advance.

I'd agree that it should be covered in medically necessary situations (as recommended by one's own doctor and not the U.S. Government) as well as rape/incest, the usual non-purely-elective reasons. Otherwise - probably, but not at first because it could kill the whole deal.

Anyway I voted yes in this poll.

[KharmaTrain]

43. If It Means Messing Up A Public Option...No

That said, I would favor setting up a non-profit where I and others could donate to help operate women's health clinics to subsidize services that any new plan wouldn't cover.

[Blue Gardener]

45. Absolutely

It is a legal medical procedure, why shouldn't it be covered?

[demoleft]

46. yes in any case. n/t

[get the red out]

47. And birth control!

I remember being young and poor and going to the health department for health care and basically being handed bags of birth control pills for next to nothing. Now they seem to do all they can to keep prevention out of the hands of those that need it.

[Vinca]

49. Yes. Unconditionally.

It has to be available as a medical necessity and it should be available to women who do not care to bring a child into the world. Those all misty eyed over babies as a basis for their embryo love need to stop protesting and start adopting.

[stray cat]

55. It should be but not if it is at the expense of achieving good health care reform

[bigwillq]

59. Yes (nt)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

61. If the abortion is medically motivated or income is below the poverty threshold

Then the abortion should be covered under insurance. I don't think any elective proceedures should be footed by the taxpayer.

My valid list of qualifiying abortion scenarios:
Excessive medical risk to the mother (or fetus).
Rape, incest, or other sexual crime.
Mother lives below the poverty threshold (can't afford it otherwise)

[el_bryanto]

62. Should someone who disapproves of abortion be forced to pay for them?

And if so why shouldn't public money go to catholic schools again?

Bryant

[tekisui]

65. I disapprove of wars and capital punishment.

As well as a host of other policies. I don't get to choose where my tax dollars go. Those who disapprove of abortions can join me in paying for some things they don't believe in. There is no logical step for public money to go to religious institutions.

[el_bryanto]

68. That is a good argument

Worth thinking about - it might break down because we are talking about individual choices vs national choices, and subsidising those choices.

Bryant

[JerseygirlCT]

70. I don't approve of the war in Iraq, or out of control

defense spending.

So let's take them right out, too.

Someone who disapproves of abortion is welcome to
A: not have one. and
B: vote accordingly. Which is the same recourse I have to the Iraq war and defense spending.

[el_bryanto]

72. Yes but there is a distinction between allowing the practice of abortion and subsidising it

I think nobody on this forum should drink or smoke marijauna; but i support both of those practice being or becoming legal because it's not up to me how other people live their lives.

Now if you wanted to take my tax money to pay for pot or booze, that's something else.

Bryant

[JerseygirlCT]

74. Except that an abortion isn't pot or booze. It's a medical procedure

and for the woman seeking it, quite necessary. Her reasons are her own, and no one's business. Any more than it's the general public's business why anyone seeks a medical procedure.

Or will health care with a gov't option in your mind mean health records are now in the public domain?

Treating abortion as something different from any other medical need is ridiculous and dangerous and just playing politics with women's health. We sure as hell wouldn't be having this conversation if it were men who wanted abortions.

[el_bryanto]

84. Perhaps we wouldn't

But to write off all concerns about the practice of abortion as sexism is somewhat Myopic. I was adopted, as were my brother and sister; any of could have been aborted. I suppose I'm usually grateful my birth mother (and their birth mothers) chose not to.

Bryant

[JerseygirlCT]

105. Of course you are.

And I can certainly agree to steps that would make abortion less necessary. I will vigorously oppose, however, efforts at making it less available.

The key to making it less necessary doesn't come from limiting women's health care. It comes from better education (more educated women are far less likely to seek abortions), better finances (ditto the above), better and more easily available contraception, easier and less expensive adoption procedures, etc.

The choice is always and must always be the woman's. Period. But offer her other options that might be more appealing, and you will likely see fewer abortions.

In fact, as has often been mentioned here, the number of abortions under Bush increased. They had decreased under Clinton.

Limiting access quite simply endangers women's lives. Limiting payment is limiting access. Isn't that the point of gov't health care? To ensure people have access to health care? That goes for abortion as well as any other medical need.

[el_bryanto]

115. I pretty much agree with you across the board, except the last paragraph

Which is that we aren't, in this case, talking about limiting access to abortion. We are taking about expanding access to it. Right now the government doesn't, in most cases, pay for abortions we would be moving to a state where the government would pay for them.

I don't think i would have a problem with the government paying for abotions in which the mothers life is in danger.

Bryant

[Gwendolyn]

116. You're missing the point though.

Single payer requires that as many people as possible are employed so they can contribute toward their own healthcare. Sales taxes add to the fund.

Take the scenario of an under privileged, lets say for argument, exceptionally stupid, single mother. She works at a menial job, making enough to keep a roof over her head. Dishing out $600 bucks for an abortion is prohibitive though. However, the government takes out a small percentage of her paycheck to subsidize her healthcare, and whenever she buys a dvd for her kid, pennies go toward it as well. Now she's preggers due to her own stupidity. She can't afford the abortion, so she has the kid. Now there's another child burdening other taxpayers since its mother doesn't contribute much to the system. Maybe the extra kid will require her to stay home and go on the dole, so now she contributes only pennies instead of dollars and there are two people burdening the system. Perhaps she's so stupid she has three more children, all provided for under the system. From a practical point of view, it's better to give the woman her abortion (which she already paid for, all the years she worked and contributed to her own healthcare "fund") than to keep someone else off the workforce, AND provide healthcare for the new non-worker and her brood.

[el_bryanto]

118. This is where we get into the possibility of strong feelings

Because i suppose the underlying thought is that the fetus would probably become a stupid under-performing member of society as well?

I'm not sure I agree with that logic; although I suppose I do favor making that woman's life better across the board, such that $600 is not so much of a pip dream.

Bryant

[Gwendolyn]

122. No, the fetus may form into a genius of a person.

But the fact remains that other tax payers will bear the burden of healthcare for 16 or more years, until that genius becomes a worthwhile contributer to the system. If the mother is unable to work, the tax payer will subsidize her as well. Their only contribution is through their purchases.

Single payer is meant as a kind of "savings plan" for the citizens to pay into, then take out when they need it. Under single payer, whenever I see my taxes taken out of my pay check, I'm assuming that pays for MY healthcare first. If I'm healthy and keel over from a heart attack at age 50, I'm thrilled that my unused contribution goes to help others. But it's for me first.

If I need an abortion, considering the number of years worked and what I use in yearly doctor's fees, I've already paid for it many times over. It's in the interest of other tax payers to see that I get it, as any number of health issues, or perhaps the chance that I won't be able to work, will infringe on THEIR healthcare fund. This is not the same as having liposuction or a nose job. I can still work fat, or with a big schnoz. People fail to see that single payer is not some charity fund they pay into for other people. It's to fund their OWN healthcare, and so it's arrogant for other people to think they can decide who should get what healthcare.

[el_bryanto]

123. Unfortunately Single Payer is a pipe dream

But under that scenario the issue doesn't arise; because like you say you are paying for your own abortion, just paying on the installment plan.

Bryant

[JerseygirlCT]

120. But you'd be comfortable not allowing those in which her

health was endangered?

Where exactly do you draw that line?

An abortion is a medical procedure. It's performed when necessary - either for the health or life of the mother. The determination of necessary is between the woman and her medical practitioner. It's not something the public ought to be involved in.

What other medical procedures ought the government not pay for?

By peeling this one procedure off and separating it out for no funding, you are essentially, limiting it. Women who are more likely to need it - poor women, less educated wome - are exactly those who will not be able to receive the medical treatment they need.

Abortions are legal. Abortion is a medical procedure. Determining necessity is something to be done between the woman and her doctor or other medical practitioner. And from a medical point of view, a pregnancy and delivery is far more risky for a woman - any woman. Carrying a baby to term is never a choice that ought to be imposed on a woman.

Limiting access to this procedure will only result in more severe problems for these women, often the ones most in need.

[el_bryanto]

121. How about Liposuction? That is also a medical procedure

Should the government health plan pay for that as well? And if not what is the difference?

Again, if the woman's life/health was endangered that's one thing. I think we are imagining two different scenarios; one in which a woman's health is endangered and one in which abortion is used as a form of birth control.

Bryant

[Gwendolyn]

124. I just answered this, but will again.

You need as many people working and self-sufficient to keep single payer a viable choice. People can work fat, and they can work with big noses or a few wrinkles. Bringing unwanted children into the world taxes the system, and if health issues, or lost dreams keep the new parent off the workforce, or in a menial job, others have to bear the cost. That dilutes the fund.

There are over a million abortions performed every year. The cost of that is miniscule as compared to the lifetime benefits paid out if even half of those resulted in unwanted children and new people requiring public assistance. If your objection is a moral one, don't have an abortion. If you have no empathy for the plight of women, or are so arrogant as to think that all kinds of women should subsidize YOUR healthcare but you feel obligated to tell them you don't approve of how they spend the money accumulated into their own healthcare savings plan, then we're sunk.

[el_bryanto]

128. I responded to you up above; if we had single payer,

most of my reservations go away. Unfortunately I don't see that as a high probability event. Rather i think we will go to something like expanded Medicare (if we get anything at all) in which my health care doesn't change at all, and I get to subsidize healthcare for those who don't have it (which I am happy to do, I should note).

Bryant

[Gwendolyn]

130. Yes, you're right. It's not single payer, but a mini version of it. Or the precursor.

But still, you're equating abortion with cosmetic surgery which is completely off the map. You'd rather refuse women healthcare and thereby end up subsidizing a whole lot of new people who otherwise wouldn't need it, whether it's the result of health issues, or adding new people onto the list of those requiring public assistance.

[el_bryanto]

136. I think we may have reached the end of profitable discussion

And since I've largely enjoyed this, I don't want to get into the angry phase of it. But let me just ask, do you understand, intellectually at least, why someone might be uncomfortable with the practice of abortion? Particularly in cases where the mothers life is not at risk or in danger?

Bryant

[Gwendolyn]

141. I didn't realize I sounded snarky as I certainly didn't mean to.

I'll be living in a single payer country for some years to come, so I'm actually looking at it objectively, with little emotion.

Largely, your argument is one of morality? I understand it very well, but I also understand that individual sense of morality has no place in forwarding the greater good of society. See that's the difference and the problem within the US. Individuality and personal freedom is such a highly prized philosophy, that people can't see beyond their own fence line. I may not want to pay for some alcoholic's liver transplant and you don't want to pay for abortions. Americans can argue over these fine points ad nauseum and that's why nothing changes. In countries where you have socialized benefits, people understand that they have to bite the moral threshold bullet occasionally and go with what will promote the greater good. They have less talk, more action, and the result is reasonable fairness for all.

[JerseygirlCT]

125. Seriously?

Can you think of a single instance in which liposuction is medically necessary? If you can, then yes, it ought to be covered.

Abortion as birth control is highly over-rated, and I don't think nearly so prevalent as you seem to want to believe. But the fact is - if I woman finds herself pregnant and unable, or unwilling to carry to term, it IS a medical problem. You can dismiss that as birth control, if you like, but I don't think you or anyone other than the patient, gets to make the determination of necessity. Commiting to a pregnancy isn't like having thinner thighs. It is a serious emotional and physical commitment. It will change the woman's life and health forever - even if everything goes as planned. It should never be something undertaken for lack of medical care.

[el_bryanto]

127. Seem to want to believe?

At this point we should probably go pull up statistics, but I'm not sure I trust anybodies statistics on this particular issue, as it seems anybody collecting such statistics probably has an ax to grid.

Again I don't have an issue with a woman being allowed to have an abortion; I may have an issue with being required to pay for it.

Bryant

[Starry Messenger]

64. Yes, of course.

It's certainly cheaper in the long run than the 18 years of healthcare needed by a child if we're judging this solely by the bottom line. Otherwise, yes all women's health care needs should be covered in public health care.

edit: I looked it up. In 2001 the average cost of an abortion was $468 dollars.
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

[JerseygirlCT]

67. Health care is health care, and it should ALL be covered

women's health, mental health, dental health...

[tekisui]

69. Agreed.

[MercutioATC]

75. It should ALL be covered? EVERY medical procedure?

Do you set limits anywhere?

[JerseygirlCT]

106. Every necessary procedure

And you don't get to decide whether a woman and her doctor find the procedure necessary.

Could the guy down the street live without that knee replacement? Sure thing. Is it up to me to make that choice for him?

I don't see why abortion should be treated differently than any other medical procedure. It's a decision to be made with medical counsel by the patient.

[MercutioATC]

109. I completely agree

If a doctor says that a knee replacement for a homeless person...or an abortion...is medically necessary, I believe that it should be covered.

Covering abortions under the same standard as any other medically-necessary procedure is exactly what I'm advocating.

[dembotoz]

77. wel like---duh--should not even have to do a poll on this

basis shit
like is a broken leg covered?????

[southernleftylady]

79. yes nt

[rocktivity]

83. Yes. Abortion is not illegal yet

and pro-choices pay taxes, too.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Gwendolyn]

85. This is what I remember being told about how it's handled in Canada.

There are two ways to go about it. Through the system or privately. Through the system, you arrive at the hospital at a given time with a bunch of other people going through the same procedure. The physician arrives. Everyone is called in one at a time for the final "are you sure" interview, then you wait some more with everybody, until it's your turn. Everyone recups in one room for a couple of hours, they give you a couple of atavans and then off you go. If you elect to do it privately, there is a fee which goes to your OBGYN, and of course that money buys you privacy and a scrip for two days worth of great drugs. This was told to me years ago, so not sure if it still applies, but sounds good to me.

[JBoy]

88. In BC, abortions are fully funded.

There are a number of clinics across the Province, where you can get an abortion without needing a doctor's referral. Abortions are also available at many hospitals (with a doctor's referral). The cost of some medications are not covered by our medical services plan.

BC covers the "morning after pill" - and can be prescribed by most pharmacists immediately (without any doctor's intervention).

The main issue in Canada is not funding, but access. Those in remote areas may have to travel a long way, which can be a barrier.

[Gwendolyn]

104. Thanks for the info.

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. No! No! No! Naughty women would benefit because of their bad choices!

And, that goes for skiers with broken legs.

And, welders who were blinded because they didn't put their goggles on.

And, diabetics who ate donuts.

And, construction workers who fall off roofs.

And, people who suffered burns when lighting fireworks.

And, people with diphtheria who didn't get innoculated.

And, anyone with STD's.

And, any medical treatment given to women while giving birth. After, all it was their "choice" to get pregnant.

We could make every "choice" we make a criteria for treatment thus saving billions of dollars and limiting health care to those deserving of it. And, the only people "entitled" to it would be those that could prove that any illness, injury, or condition was not caused by any choice they made.

This debate, like most others about a womans right to medical care for a medical condition, is all about "good girls" vs "bad girls". As we all know, "good girls", even when married, don't enjoy sex. Whereas, "bad girls" do and must be made to pay for their naughtiness by carrying to term.

[Gwendolyn]

112. Good post. That's pretty much it.

The stupid welder gets covered whereas the woman whose birth control failed is on her own.

[ceile]

142. +1

Perfectly stated.

[SidDithers]

98. Absolutely...

it's a medical procedure, and should be covered as any other medical procedure.

Sid

[City Lights]

99. Absolutely. Ditto for birth control. nt

[rd_kent]

100. As long as we want to keep choice legal, abortions are "health care"

and should be treated as such: a medical procedure. Then they are covered.

[Greybnk48]

102. also, dental and optical. No medical need should be omitted.

[JerseygirlCT]

110. I agree - mental health as well nt

[slackmaster]

144. My eyeglasses cost almost $900 because I chose a lot of extras for precise vision and comfort

Also durability (titanium frames).

I would not expect a national health plan to cover every option. I could have gotten glasses for as little as about $250.

[PassingTimeHere]

149. I agree.

[ensho]

111. kick

nt

[Cerridwen]

113. Yes. For many reasons.

To those who don't want their money going to pay for "elective" medical procedures such as abortion - tough. I don't want my money going to fund war. It does. Time to poney up for the women for a change.

To those who think of abortion as "elective" surgery comparable to a face lift - go work a domestic violence shelter, a Planned Parenthood clinic, or rape crisis center for a while then get back to me. Women may "choose" to have an abortion for many reasons. To treat women as though they're running around having abortions with no more thought than whether or not it'll interfere with their prom plans is the ultimate insult. Oh, and by the way, it's a *right wing meme* that's been catapulted by the likes of randall terry and his ilk. You've been pwned!

If you're one of those "safe, legal and rare" types. Fine. Let's do it in *that* order - it's already legal so let's focus on safe before we jump to rare. You want rare? Make it economically possible, in this capitalist economy, for women to afford pre-natal and well-baby care. Change the workplace so it's family friendly. Create safe and healthy communities. Provide good education. Quit tying a person's value to their credit score; or in the case of women in some communities, to their child-bearing capabilities or lack thereof.

If you *believe* life begins at conception, don't have an abortion. Otherwise, keep your beliefs out of our laws. We are not a homogeneous society with the same beliefs. If you don't like that, there are places on this planet in which a religion makes the law for all its people. Or try Utah. If you don't understand why your beliefs don't belong in our laws, then get your nose out of my uterus long enough to go read a history book. Humans have a lousy history when it comes to setting up theocracies.

If you're one of those who thinks abortion causes mental illness, then quit heaping blame on those who have one. Oh, and by the way, that too is a "scientific" *right wing meme* catapulted by "scientists" for anti-choice bigots. You too, have been pwned!

It is only recently, relative to history, that we've had the luxury to have this debate over abortion. Prior to medical and health care advances, women were doing good to survive pregnancy and babies were doing good to live beyond their first few years. Long about the Victorian era a bunch of paternalistic doctors got together and decided the poor little women needed to be protected from themselves; or we weren't going to be as easily controlled by them good ol' docs. Most of the propaganda catapulted these past years comes from some version of their "scientific" arguments against women controlling their own bodies. If you're spouting any of it, you've been pwned!

eta:

Storer, Horatio R., and Franklin Fiske Heard. Criminal Abortion: Its Nature, Its Evidence, and Its Law.

Containing both medical and legal perspectives, Criminal Abortion is an important document from the early decades of the anti-abortion crusade. Dr. Storer <1830-1922> led the medical campaign against abortion during the second half of the nineteenth century. His efforts were supported by Heard <1825-1889>, the distinguished jurist and legal scholar. The motivations for both men were primarily racist, xenophobic and sexist. They were horrified by declining birthrates among the Yankee classes and the influx of immigrants, many of them non-white, Catholic and Jewish. In their minds abortion in the non-immigrant community, which they attributed to modern fashion and feminism, was leading to "race suicide" and a country overtaken by "inferior races." (emphasis added) link

[BlooInBloo]

119. Of course it should. The sticky question is whether or not an otherwise good bill should fail...

if it doesn't include said coverage.

[Mz Pip]

126. I agree

THere hasn't been federal funds for abortions in decades. Not getting any kind of health care reform because of this one issue would be unfortunate.

If Democrats hold up passage of health care reform on this one issue, the Republicans end up winning. The GOP will get their wish, no health care reform. I suspect the Republicans are hoping this will torpedo the bill entirely.


One can argue whether on not the Hyde Ammendment is fair or right, but it has been in place for a long time. This may not be the best time to try to change that law.

[me b zola]

132. Yes

Women should be included in the health care plan.

And yes, it is that black & white.

[Political Heretic]

139. Yes.

[slackmaster]

143. Yes, with some reasonable limits on the payout to prevent abuse of the system

Any abortion that is medically necessary, 100% covered.

Elective abortions before (picking a number out of the air, and I'm not going to engage in any argument about specifics) 13 weeks, 100% covered but some kind of limit to encourage people to be more careful with contraception.

Elective abortions in the second trimester, partly covered (to encourage women to make up their minds at an early stage where abortion is less complicated).

[PassingTimeHere]

147. If abortion is the only thing not covered we'd be damn lucky.

Discrimination or not.

[orleans]

150. if it was the only thing not covered, i think you're right--we'd still be

damn lucky--and then we could pursue getting it covered.

welcome to du.

[twop]

152. No

Abortion is an elective surgery.

[Iggo]

153. Sure. Why not.

[upi402]

154. A good point of compromise I bet. n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

158. Hell yes. If it doesn't, the terrorists win.

Literally.