Arizona governor signs bill blocking abortion coverage through Obamacare

[SlevinKelevra]

Arizona governor signs bill blocking abortion coverage through Obamacare | Reuters

(Reuters) - Arizona Republican Governor Doug Ducey signed a law on Monday that requires doctors to tell women that drug-induced abortions can be reversed and that blocks the purchase of insurance on the Obamacare health exchange that includes abortion coverage.

Cue a federal court smackdown in 3....2....1.....

what a waste of taxpayer $ this stunt is.

 

[Henrin]

Perhaps people don't want to pay for abortions? Why is that bad again?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Perhaps people don't want to pay for abortions? Why is that bad again?

I agree that is an issue, but here we have legislation designed to pit a State decision against ACA as well as cloud the issue of abortion inducing drugs like Plan B. Federal exchange requirements have one set of conditions, this pits that against State wishes. Other States have tried this to varying degrees of failure, the article mentions Arizona which I thought was not worked out just yet but the article suggests otherwise.

I do not think this effort was about the idea of tax dollars going to abortions, that was just what sounded nice at the mic. The real issue here is another in a long series of manufactured challenged to ACA. The party line vote suggest both motivations, but I suspect this is really about filling the courts with potential to hit ACA.

 

[joG]

Arizona governor signs bill blocking abortion coverage through Obamacare | Reuters





Cue a federal court smackdown in 3....2....1.....

what a waste of taxpayer $ this stunt is.

It would be terribly unconstitutional for the state to discriminate against religious practice by forcing them to pay for what they consider murder.

 

[joG]

Perhaps people don't want to pay for abortions? Why is that bad again?

Lots of folks don't understand that, but usually it is just maliciousness, hate or some such silliness that drives them to want to harm the religious.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

It would be terribly unconstitutional for the state to discriminate against religious practice by forcing them to pay for what they consider murder.

ummm, this prevents women (not men, interestingly?) from buying the plan WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.

 

[joG]

ummm, this prevents women (not men, interestingly?) from buying the plan WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.

It goes further than that. It means that paying taxes that are partially used for abortion would be ethically a break in American constitutional culture.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

It goes further than that. It means that paying taxes that are partially used for abortion would be ethically a break in American constitutional culture.

that seems a leap that SCOTUS would pounce on, given that the Quakers never got their way

 

[Fletch]

ummm, this prevents women (not men, interestingly?) from buying the plan WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.

And those who get their insurance through subsidy? (which is the point of Obamacare)

 

[joG]

that seems a leap that SCOTUS would pounce on, given that the Quakers never got their way

I do not remember the case you are referring to.

 

[joG]

And those who get their insurance through subsidy? (which is the point of Obamacare)

If a plan pays for abortions then everyone in the plan is paying for abortions and participating. If the State pays people's premium, then every taxpayer is also a perpetrator.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

I do not remember the case you are referring to.

U.S. Sues Quaker Group Over Taxes - NYTimes.com
Conscientious objection to military taxation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SlevinKelevra]

If a plan pays for abortions then everyone in the plan is paying for abortions and participating. If the State pays people's premium, then every taxpayer is also a perpetrator.

OK, let's say I agree.

Taxes pay for Medicare which pays for Viagra; so everyone pays for Viagra; some Viagra is used by non-married couples, or worse, adulterous couples.

Where is the objection from the same aggrieved parties who want the legislation in the OP?

 

[Tsunami]

Perhaps people don't want to pay for abortions? Why is that bad again?

If a plan pays for abortions then everyone in the plan is paying for abortions and participating. If the State pays people's premium, then every taxpayer is also a perpetrator.

Abortions save the insurance companies money, otherwise they would have to pay for pregnancy. I've never understood the argument that abortion coverage increases the cost of health insurance. This is not an economic issue.

 

[joG]

OK, let's say I agree.

Taxes pay for Medicare which pays for Viagra; so everyone pays for Viagra; some Viagra is used by non-married couples, or worse, adulterous couples.

Where is the objection from the same aggrieved parties who want the legislation in the OP?

While it is true that adulterous sexual activity is a severe failing in most traditional ethics, it far from the level of severity of contraception or abortion. But the main difference is that the payer is not paying for the adulterous behavior. On the other hand, if medicare were to pay for prostitutes we would be in business. Or at least closer to your argument.

 

[joG]

Abortions save the insurance companies money, otherwise they would have to pay for pregnancy. I've never understood the argument that abortion coverage increases the cost of health insurance. This is not an economic issue.

It is not the increase or decrease in costs that is relevant here. It is the forced participation in what is considered by many religious groups to be murder.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

While it is true that adulterous sexual activity is a severe failing in most traditional ethics, it far from the level of severity of contraception or abortion. But the main difference is that the payer is not paying for the adulterous behavior. On the other hand, if medicare were to pay for prostitutes we would be in business. Or at least closer to your argument.

I disagree completely, the Viagra directly facilitates the behavior for many parties that could not otherwise engage in them.
Further, if your "religious beliefs" are sincere, no 'sin' should be spared from your tax-funding-association outrage.
Otherwise, it's situational religious morality, and the sincerity of your beliefs is absolutely in question.

 

[joG]

I disagree completely, the Viagra directly facilitates the behavior for many parties that could not otherwise engage in them.
Further, if your "religious beliefs" are sincere, no 'sin' should be spared from your tax-funding-association outrage.
Otherwise, it's situational religious morality, and the sincerity of your beliefs is absolutely in question.

If you do not understand the obvious logical difference that makes it difficult. You see, there is a difference between paying for a gun later used to murder someone and paying the girl to shoot the man.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

I disagree completely, the Viagra directly facilitates the behavior for many parties that could not otherwise engage in them.
Further, if your "religious beliefs" are sincere, no 'sin' should be spared from your tax-funding-association outrage.
Otherwise, it's situational religious morality, and the sincerity of your beliefs is absolutely in question.

While some religious people may object to the use of viagra in certain situations, it isn't murder.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

While some religious people may object to the use of viagra in certain situations, it isn't murder.

neither is abortion, per federal law.

that said, is murder the only sin?

 

[Fletch]

I disagree completely, the Viagra directly facilitates the behavior for many parties that could not otherwise engage in them.
Further, if your "religious beliefs" are sincere, no 'sin' should be spared from your tax-funding-association outrage.
Otherwise, it's situational religious morality, and the sincerity of your beliefs is absolutely in question.

How about we do this: you pay for your insurance and cover whatever you want and I will do the same. Leave the state and the federal government out of it.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

How about we do this: you pay for your insurance and cover whatever you want and I will do the same. Leave the state and the federal government out of it.

how would you ever sue your insurance provider if you felt they violated your contract?


how would you pay for "whatever" you want in your policy if you have a monopoly provider in your state that doesn't offer the coverage you want?

 

[Citizen.Seven]

neither is abortion, per federal law.

that said, is murder the only sin?

Some people don't derive their morality from federal law. Where the two agree, they approve, where depart, they fight. It's also a question of urgency and severity of injury. I suspect that the possibile misuse of viagra, while perhaps wrong in their eyes does not seem as important as the murder of babies and hence does not garner the same level of opposition. So, maybe once the abortion thing is settled, some may work their way down the list of moral quagmires with de facto socialized medicine and get to that issue.

 

[Fletch]

how would you ever sue your insurance provider if you felt they violated your contract?

The state would retain the traditional, constitutional role of establishing justice.

how would you pay for "whatever" you want in your policy if you have a monopoly provider in your state that doesn't offer the coverage you want?

What you want and what is available is determined by the market and your ability to pay. Just like every other product or service is.

 

[Blue_State]

OK, let's say I agree.

Taxes pay for Medicare which pays for Viagra; so everyone pays for Viagra; some Viagra is used by non-married couples, or worse, adulterous couples.

Where is the objection from the same aggrieved parties who want the legislation in the OP?

I don't think Viagra is covered under Medicare or Part D.