• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

I think why it is so different is because it is still a emotive issue in US, which probably links into the fact US is undeniably very religious for a western country.
Abortion has been a dead issue in many countries. Accept it and try to reduce it by not criminalizing it.

I think with the U.S., this may be one step too far. It was already a lot to ask some people to accept the Roe v Wade ruling, people still think UHC is controversial, and now they are being asked to accept UHC endorsed abortion. I think it is too much for the social realm of U.S. society. It needs to develop more and maybe in the future the matter can be examined better.

It seems though that UHC is coming regardless. Maybe UHC endorsed abortion will be a party-based initiative. Just like Republicans almost always endorse abstinence only education, and just like Democrats tend to re-abolish it when they come back into power, maybe UHC endorsed abortion will be treated the same.
 
It's not. That you think a certain aspect is a shortcoming is of no surprise, though. Chances are that you are in favor of some political agenda that i find abhorrent, but i wouldn't call it a "shortcoming". It's just something that you favor that i disagree with. I support abortions being paid for with tax dollars, and you can disagree with me, but just because i have that opinion that you don't agree with doesn't make it a shortcoming.

Newsflash to Ethereal: Your disagreement with an opinion is not a "shortcoming" of that opinion.

My disagreement with your opinion was not offered absent any reasoning. The coercive nature of government-funded abortions is a valid observation and a logical premise from which to argue.

Lots of people on this thread have merely shared their opinion and not provided logic.

That's fine, but don't be surprised when I inform you that your opinion - although very neat! - doesn't make any sense.

You certainly haven't provided any logic that i'm aware of. Hell, you act like the fact that you disagree with me is a "shortcoming". That's faulty logic if i've ever heard it. Perhaps you should take a page from my book and not act like you're presenting logic when you're just presenting your biased opinion.

Opinions can also be correct or incorrect. Your's happens to be incorrect.

Current taxation does this every day. It's a fact of life.

Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

Um, sure. Look, this board is allowing us both to post. Let's not pretend that somehow what people should and shouldn't say, according to your opinion is somehow relevant.

What?

It depends on the wording of the law.

Sammyo's children, whilst in attendance at any public school, shall be made to pray to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed so that we may have everlasting life.

So, what do you think of my law?

I imagine that i'd be vocal in some way just like you'd be vocal in some way on abortion paid for with tax dollars.

DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!

So, suppose, in the course of your vocalizing, I simply told you to "stop whining". Would you consider that to be a logical refutation of your position?

I think you should have the right to be vocal about abortion paid for with tax dollars and that i should have the right to be vocal about whatever i please. That's what make this country so great. What about this process do you not like?

When are you going to stop beating your wife? See, I can ask loaded questions, too.

Nowhere have I advocated anything in opposition to free speech or the exercise thereof. I'm simply trying to contest the validity of your opinion, not its existence.

Well you were the one acting like your opinion was some almighty pronouncement or something. I never did. If you want to take opinions so seriously than that's your business. I was just cluing you in to the reality that i don't.

Hey, thanks for that. I love reality.

:)
 
Why?

UHC paying for abortions means that all abortion clinics become subject to government inspection, which means we can make sure that procedures are being performed safely and humanely. At private clinics things can happen more behind closed doors.

Abortion clinics already are subject to government inspection.
 
Illegals will get free healthcare.
 
I think it is too much for the social realm of U.S. society. It needs to develop more and maybe in the future the matter can be examined better.

I agree

RvW is seen as horrific in itself by some, add to that UHC and then UHC paying for Abortion. No no, ease them into it. Slowly.
 
I don't really care, but when pro-lifers start talking about pro-choicers being pro-abortion, then i feel the need to point out that pro-lifers are mostly anti-choicers (when it comes to women).

Oh well. Labels and semantics aren't something I typically find worth discussing.
 
That's a great point Ikari... plastic surgery is usually covered in instances of accidents, and you usually have to apply for it specially to the government. For example, burn victims with severe burns, or children who have been in car accidents, can sometimes be eligible. I'm not sure of the statistics though.

In any case... abortion is covered under UHC as part of most nations' birth control regimes. It's also the reason why birth control pills tend to be cheaper in Western nations, since they receive some subsidy from the government.

But if the requirement for being covered by UHC is "a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for", why would you reject cosmetic surgery, elected cosmetic surgery. The likes meant only to make you look like a horrible skeleton with skin stretched tightly across the skull? It is a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for.

I would say I could accept abortion in cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Actual medical need, like those being burned or in accidents and such for cosmetic surgery. However, elective abortion is just that, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
 
But if the requirement for being covered by UHC is "a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for", why would you reject cosmetic surgery, elected cosmetic surgery. The likes meant only to make you look like a horrible skeleton with skin stretched tightly across the skull? It is a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for.

I would say I could accept abortion in cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Actual medical need, like those being burned or in accidents and such for cosmetic surgery. However, elective abortion is just that, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Necessity rules.

If i wanted bigger boobs just because, no way would i get it. I'd be at the back of the list and those infront of me would be burnt victims etc.

If they had no one that needed such surgery, they'd consider it.
 
Necessity rules.

If i wanted bigger boobs just because, no way would i get it. I'd be at the back of the list and those infront of me would be burnt victims etc.

If they had no one that needed such surgery, they'd consider it.

K. But I'd say no way no how. If you want fake boobies, I say pay for them yourself.
 
K. But I'd say no way no how. If you want fake boobies, I say pay for them yourself.

I wouldn't get it anyway.

Not unless there is no one else in the country or area who needs it
 
A better term for pro-life is anti-choice. I tend to use that one much more.

And pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice but I don't like abortion. I consider it a last resort and a messy one.

I don't play the label game.
 
But if the requirement for being covered by UHC is "a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for", why would you reject cosmetic surgery, elected cosmetic surgery. The likes meant only to make you look like a horrible skeleton with skin stretched tightly across the skull? It is a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for.

I would say I could accept abortion in cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Actual medical need, like those being burned or in accidents and such for cosmetic surgery. However, elective abortion is just that, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.

As Laila said, necessity. Burn victims require therapy for their scars for life, for example. They are painful and debilitating. Cosmetic surgery could not only relieve their suffering but also save in long term therapy costs.

Pregnancy is also a medical condition. The mother's physiological state changes, and there is no such thing as a pregnancy without risk. You could, theoretically, justify abortion as the removal of an unwanted and risky influence on the body. If the mother had to go through childbirth because UHC would not cover her abortion, and then died, it would be an ethical concern for UHC. I know this isn't most of the cases, I'm just positing.

Elective cosmetic surgery is just a personal enhancement that is not really needed, but desired.

Also... abortion, in paper, is not as expensive as most other routine medical procedures that UHC would cover. Most abortions can be done for less than $1000 as an outpatient procedure. Compare that to any number of other procedures in the tens of thousands of dollars.
 
I wouldn't get it anyway.

Not unless there is no one else in the country or area who needs it

While I understand that, I don't think there should be the possibility of tax payers paying for something like that.
 
Also... abortion, in paper, is not as expensive as most other routine medical procedures that UHC would cover. Most abortions can be done for less than $1000 as an outpatient procedure. Compare that to any number of other procedures in the tens of thousands of dollars.

It's not a money issue. If anything, it's even further commentary on how sick the process is. Fake boobs seem to be worth more than human life in our current world. The end result is that abortion has horrible consequences, the destruction of innocent human life. And because of that I think we should caution ourselves on what we'd allow the public to fund in these cases.
 
While I understand that, I don't think there should be the possibility of tax payers paying for something like that.

Perhaps
Neither do i but if they pay taxes as well, who am i to bitch?
 
It's not a money issue. If anything, it's even further commentary on how sick the process is. Fake boobs seem to be worth more than human life in our current world. The end result is that abortion has horrible consequences, the destruction of innocent human life. And because of that I think we should caution ourselves on what we'd allow the public to fund in these cases.

Okay, even if $1 were being contributed by gov., it wouldn't matter because for you its an ethical concern.

So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?

I'm not trying to paint you as a hypocrite... I'm just saying. The group paying for the individual has been the case for a long time in the work sector. Granted, it's not the public sector, but still.

As I said before, I think more than likely what will happen with U.S. style UHC is that coverage for abortion will depend on which administration is in power. The Republicans will strike it from the bill while the Democrats will restore it. It is the same with the rest of the birth control policy in general.

I still do not see it as a reason to not have UHC though.
 
Okay, even if $1 were being contributed by gov., it wouldn't matter because for you its an ethical concern.

So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?

I'm not trying to paint you as a hypocrite... I'm just saying. The group paying for the individual has been the case for a long time in the work sector. Granted, it's not the public sector, but still.

As I said before, I think more than likely what will happen with U.S. style UHC is that coverage for abortion will depend on which administration is in power. The Republicans will strike it from the bill while the Democrats will restore it. It is the same with the rest of the birth control policy in general.

I still do not see it as a reason to not have UHC though.

It's a private company. If you have ethical objections to their health care plan then you can simply purchase your own insurance. Taxes do not allow for such a choice.
 
Okay, even if $1 were being contributed by gov., it wouldn't matter because for you its an ethical concern.

So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?

I'm not trying to paint you as a hypocrite... I'm just saying. The group paying for the individual has been the case for a long time in the work sector. Granted, it's not the public sector, but still.

As I said before, I think more than likely what will happen with U.S. style UHC is that coverage for abortion will depend on which administration is in power. The Republicans will strike it from the bill while the Democrats will restore it. It is the same with the rest of the birth control policy in general.

I still do not see it as a reason to not have UHC though.

I can't do anything with private companies, I don't have a say as it's their company. I do have a say in what the government does and funds since it's my government and my money.
 
So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?
You CHOOSE to participate in this insurance.
UHC denies that choice.

Its all about choice, right?
 
I can't do anything with private companies, I don't have a say as it's their company. I do have a say in what the government does and funds since it's my government and my money.

With UHC, you don't really. All countries with a progressive birth control policy that have UHC cover abortion for their people. It's just common sense. I realize you can't see this because we come from two different cultures, but it's more unethical to offer selective procedures based on populist morality. You either have UHC or you don't. The "universal" part is important.

I do reiterate though that the U.S. is simply not ready for UHC. They can't make the initial leap of wanting to pay for the collective health of their society, so why should I expect them to understand why UHC being pro-choice makes sense?

Your country just isn't ready. There are too many debates happening and UHC intersects a lot of them. You can't have UHC until the chatter dies down.
 
Your country just isn't ready. There are too many debates happening and UHC intersects a lot of them. You can't have UHC until the chatter dies down.

So US will never have UHC? :p
It won't ever stop having such debates, there is no consensus amongst politicans let alone the people
 
With UHC, you don't really. All countries with a progressive birth control policy that have UHC cover abortion for their people. It's just common sense.
I've found that "its just common sense" is code for "I cannot really come up with a good argument to support the idea".

:mrgreen:
 
Okay, even if $1 were being contributed by gov., it wouldn't matter because for you its an ethical concern.

So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?

I'm not trying to paint you as a hypocrite... I'm just saying. The group paying for the individual has been the case for a long time in the work sector. Granted, it's not the public sector, but still.

There's that slippery slope. Bad enough when private companies do it. Worse when the whole nation does it!
 
So US will never have UHC? :p
It won't ever stop having such debates, there is no consensus amongst politicans let alone the people

You're right... which is why UHC in the U.S. will, at best, be administered in a partisan way based on who is in power. But that, to me, is not really UHC at all. Better than nothing I guess.

Our countries legalized abortion and funded it across the board under pro-choice policy. They looked at it and said, "If you want one, we will help. If you don't want one, don't get one." But in our countries, the evangelists and religious right are given less of a voice in secular politics. They have much more power in the U.S.

I still assert that if you don't like abortion, then don't get one... but it's not enough for the opposition. For them, it's: "Oh, but we want to control everyone and make sure people aren't being murdered!"
 
Back
Top Bottom