• 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!

Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

Where do you stand on UHC?


  • Total voters
    36

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
53,925
Reaction score
39,716
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support UHC. I can't honestly see how someone can say "It's my body, it's my choice" and "It's between me and my doctor" when it comes to abortion, but can allow the government to interfere when it comes to UHC. Because if UHC passes, it will no longer be "your choice", it will be the "government's choice" in regards to what they want to pay for. It will no longer be a choice that you and your doctor make because the bureaucracy of government is now the ultimate voice in the matter.
 
1. This thread is based on a false premise in that no bills up for consideration would nationalize health care. Most people will simply continue to have the same employer group benefits they have now.

2. Right now insurance companies decide what treatment you get and won't get. Now lets say you are being treated for cancer, do you honestly think that you can switch insurers if you are unhappy with the one you have?
 
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support private health care. I can't honestly see how someone can say "It's my body, it's my choice" and "It's between me and my doctor" when it comes to abortion, but can allow a private corporation to interfere when it comes to health care. Because if private health care passes, it will no longer be "your choice", it will be the "the private corporation's choice" in regards to what they want to pay for. It will no longer be a choice that you and your doctor make because the bureaucracy of the corporation is now the ultimate voice in the matter.
 
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support UHC. I can't honestly see how someone can say "It's my body, it's my choice" and "It's between me and my doctor" when it comes to abortion, but can allow the government to interfere when it comes to UHC. Because if UHC passes, it will no longer be "your choice", it will be the "government's choice" in regards to what they want to pay for. It will no longer be a choice that you and your doctor make because the bureaucracy of government is now the ultimate voice in the matter.


Every time this comparison comes up it kind of makes me laugh. The insurance company dictates what tests, treatment, ect. I can have. I really don't see that as an argument against healthcare reform.

:shrug:
 
OK, take off your rose colored glasses and let's look at this honestly for a minute OK?
1. This thread is based on a false premise in that no bills up for consideration would nationalize health care. Most people will simply continue to have the same employer group benefits they have now.
Really? You mean that if there was a free alternative out there and struggling business owners could save millions of dollars by dropping their private insurance they offer to their employees that they wouldn't jump at the chance to save so much money? I know my employer would drop Blue Cross/Blue Shield in a second if UHC was available - much to the dismay of at least 90% of the employees.

2. Right now insurance companies decide what treatment you get and won't get. Now lets say you are being treated for cancer, do you honestly think that you can switch insurers if you are unhappy with the one you have?
You have the option to purchase different insurance coverage, yes. But what does cancer have to do with abortion (you know, the topic at hand)?
 
Every time this comparison comes up it kind of makes me laugh. The insurance company dictates what tests, treatment, ect. I can have. I really don't see that as an argument against healthcare reform.

:shrug:

So with private insurance, one would have the right to choose their coverage (you know, how much the provider will cover, what they cover, etc...). But with UHC, they wouldn't have an alternative once private insurance is eliminated (Obama's goal).
 
OK, take off your rose colored glasses and let's look at this honestly for a minute OK?

Really? You mean that if there was a free alternative out there and struggling business owners could save millions of dollars by dropping their private insurance they offer to their employees that they wouldn't jump at the chance to save so much money? I know my employer would drop Blue Cross/Blue Shield in a second if UHC was available - much to the dismay of at least 90% of the employees.

If they were to pass a public option it would not be a free alternative. You would pay premiums for it just like you pay premiums to a private insurer. Universal Healthcare does not mean free health care for everyone. I means coverage accessible enough for everyone to have it.

You have the option to purchase different insurance coverage, yes. But what does cancer have to do with abortion (you know, the topic at hand)?

So if you undergoing treatment for a serious condition and you think your insurance company is denying coverage for treatment you think you need, you will be able to find another insurer to take you? Not going to happen, which is the problem with that argument. As soon as you get any serious condition you are stuck with the insurer you have because no other insurer will take you, so you are scared to death to lose what you have at that point. The days of choice for you at that point are over.

There are plenty of arguments against the plans being considered in congress. Namely, cost and if the federal government could ever efficiently run that large of a program. However, the whole "death panel" government deciding what care you will get it a legitimate argument as right now its an insurance employee with a financial motive to deny you care thats making that decision.
 
If they were to pass a public option it would not be a free alternative. You would pay premiums for it just like you pay premiums to a private insurer. Universal Healthcare does not mean free health care for everyone. I means coverage accessible enough for everyone to have it.
It would be free to my employer now wouldn't it? In time, it will be the only option. Obama wants to wipe out private health insurance and has stated as such.

So if you undergoing treatment for a serious condition and you think your insurance company is denying coverage for treatment you think you need, you will be able to find another insurer to take you? Not going to happen, which is the problem with that argument. As soon as you get any serious condition you are stuck with the insurer you have because no other insurer will take you, so you are scared to death to lose what you have at that point. The days of choice for you at that point are over.
You are once again off-topic (as usual) and where did I say after the diagnosis? You assumed incorrectly - yet again.

There are plenty of arguments against the plans being considered in congress. Namely, cost and if the federal government could ever efficiently run that large of a program. However, the whole "death panel" government deciding what care you will get it a legitimate argument as right now its an insurance employee with a financial motive to deny you care thats making that decision.
Did I mention death panels? But I have a choice with private insurance, I don't with the federal government. This was the point of this thread and the poll. Choice will be non-existent if UHC takes off and private health insurers are done away with. At least there are choices presently. Albeit the choices are not perfect, but instead of taking over the health care industry, let's try to fix what we have (choice).
 
It would be free to my employer now wouldn't it? In time, it will be the only option. Obama wants to wipe out private health insurance and has stated as such.

If you switched to an individual policy today it would be "free to your employer". What keeps them from eliminating their health insurance benefit? They still have to compete with other companies for labor resources and health insurance is one of the tools they use to compete with for the best and the brightest employees.

You are once again off-topic (as usual) and where did I say after the diagnosis? You assumed incorrectly - yet again.

The only time you would switch insurers beforehand would be if you switched companies and thus fell under a different group plan, or found a cheaper premium. If you argument is that the government could deny you care and there is nothing you can do about it, then that is no different than your current insurer denying you care.

But I have a choice with private insurance, I don't with the federal government. This was the point of this thread and the poll. Choice will be non-existent if UHC takes off and private health insurers are done away with.

The only reason why private health insurers would be done away with would be if they could not compete with a public plan. I find that hard to believe. I don't think private insurers will have any problem competing with a public plan.
 
OK, take off your rose colored glasses and let's look at this honestly for a minute OK?

Really? You mean that if there was a free alternative out there and struggling business owners could save millions of dollars by dropping their private insurance they offer to their employees that they wouldn't jump at the chance to save so much money? I know my employer would drop Blue Cross/Blue Shield in a second if UHC was available - much to the dismay of at least 90% of the employees.

Universal health care doesn't mean it's a "free alternative." The primary source of revenue for the program would still be premiums from the insurees. Yes, there would be subsidies for those who couldn't afford the premiums, but that isn't at all the same thing as free health care.

Second of all, you are probably right that employers will begin to drop health insurance en masse once there is a universal health care plan. But whether you like the public plan or not, it's a good thing to transition away from our current employer-based system. Even if you prefer private insurance, surely you would agree that having a system where health insurance is attached to employment is economically inefficient?

Furthermore, you said that 90% of the employees where you work would be dismayed if your employer dropped Blue Cross / Blue Shield. Well, if people suddenly aren't getting insurance through their employers anymore and many of them don't want the public option, that creates a pretty strong incentive for private insurers to compete with one another over prices in the INDIVIDUAL market, to get all these additional customers.


P/N said:
You have the option to purchase different insurance coverage, yes. But what does cancer have to do with abortion (you know, the topic at hand)?

If you have cancer and you don't like your insurer, you're pretty much stuck. If you could find an insurer who would cover your preexisting condition at all, you'd pay an unaffordable premium.

As for the topic of this thread, there are plenty of reasons to be pro-choice besides the whole "My body, my choice" thing. In a free society I believe you need a good reason to make something ILLEGAL, not to make it legal. Lacking a valid justification for banning abortion (at least in my opinion), I am pro-choice by default. I don't see how it's relevant to universal health care.
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support UHC. I can't honestly see how someone can say "It's my body, it's my choice" and "It's between me and my doctor" when it comes to abortion, but can allow the government to interfere when it comes to UHC. Because if UHC passes, it will no longer be "your choice", it will be the "government's choice" in regards to what they want to pay for. It will no longer be a choice that you and your doctor make because the bureaucracy of government is now the ultimate voice in the matter.
Oooh, won't that be fun! If my tax dollars go to funding abortions, I will expect full transparency in who gets what done, kind of like with FEC and SEC filings. If it's good for the goose ...

Of course that'll never happen. The slogan will be changed to, "my body, my choice, your money." Yay.
 
I would support a UHC program, depending on the details. I like the concept, but there are practical considerations.

I do not consider myself "pro-choice", but as "pro abortion rights". I think the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms used by those afraid of the word abortion.
 
So with private insurance, one would have the right to choose their coverage (you know, how much the provider will cover, what they cover, etc...). But with UHC, they wouldn't have an alternative once private insurance is eliminated (Obama's goal).

No, I don't have the option of choosing. I take what my employer offers. I certainly couldn't afford to pay the premiums by striking out on my own.
 
Oooh, won't that be fun! If my tax dollars go to funding abortions, I will expect full transparency in who gets what done, kind of like with FEC and SEC filings. If it's good for the goose ...

Of course that'll never happen. The slogan will be changed to, "my body, my choice, your money." Yay.

Your tax dollars do not go to fund abortions. So I fail to see the point there.
 
Your tax dollars do not go to fund abortions. So I fail to see the point there.
I believe the question posed in the OP was a hypothetical one, correct? That's how I'm responding.
 
This seems like a false dichotomy. I'll explain

Abortions aren't provided or paid for with tax payer money to my knowledge. It's the kind of **** storm no liberal-progressive-moderate-administration has ever dared to touch. And pro-choice is about a person's right to choose to whether to go through or to not go through pregnancy. Whether or not you have the means ie. capital to pay for an abortion is entirely on that person. With that being said unless through the 'Obamacare' plan the government starts paying for privately performed abortions with tax payer money(doubt it but I could be wrong) then I do not see why these issues are related or even come into some kind of problem with each other. You still have the right to choose whether or not you want to get an abortion and if you have the money for it, more power to you. $400USD.
 
Abortions will be funded by the proposed UHC program. If you don't believe that, then your eyes aren't open.
 
Abortions will be funded by the proposed UHC program. If you don't believe that, then your eyes aren't open.

That is still being debated, and there is absolutely no way that it will end up in the final bill. The Democrats are having enough trouble keeping their members in line as it is...I highly doubt they're going to make a big fuss over a culture war issue, and all but force pro-life Democrats to vote against the bill.
 
It would be free to my employer now wouldn't it? In time, it will be the only option. Obama wants to wipe out private health insurance and has stated as such.

I would actually like to see a video of him saying such.
 
I would actually like to see a video of him saying such.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk"]YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]

Enjoy!
 
why is it that some people can not see what is being done by inches because the populous would not accept it if implemented by the yard

That is the undeniable outcome. The govt does not do things 'just a bit' They are in for a penny in for a pound

they are going to sucker you chumps with their initial approach where it is Kombayah we just want to offer a cheap alternative, to well we need to expand to help you with this and than to help you with this and than it is the only thing available

You have just given your life, your health, and 1/6th of the ecomony (which will get bigger with the govt involved) to those 'nobelmen in washington who thankfully have only your best interest at heart" :roll:
 
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support UHC. I can't honestly see how someone can say "It's my body, it's my choice" and "It's between me and my doctor" when it comes to abortion, but can allow the government to interfere when it comes to UHC.

You make a big assumption here. A UHC program could merely reform insurance to mandate somewhat reasonable terms to everyone with assistance to those who can't afford insurance with no more government intervention than that. You'd keep your own doctor, your own choices, the only thing government would be involved in is reforming insurance. Please tell me how that in any way supports your later claims. UHC could also range into Palin-esque statements about death panels.

UHC does not come in one form. Stop propagating that notion.

That said, I'm for legal abortion with some restrictions, but UHC should not pay for it.
 
Abortions will be funded by the proposed UHC program. If you don't believe that, then your eyes aren't open.

So I can trust that this is all based on your biased green colored view of the bill and not any actual part of the bill? I'm only on page 150. Maybe you've read more and can show where the government funded abortions are?

From some Christian website :

Christians Decry Tax-Funded Abortion in Health Care Bill | Christianpost.com

In the 1,018-page health care bill, there is no mention of abortion much less federal funding for abortion. However, opponents of abortion are worried about the silence on the issue. They maintain that without an explicit barring of federal funding for abortion, it could be covered by tax dollars.

Now I don't know whether or not they've read the bill but from what I gather there seems to be no mention of abortion in the bill. At all. I mean the way I see it, the government and administrations has a million other social programs in which they could use tax payer money to fund abortions. Why wait for a bill they're gambling so much political money on to have tax payer funded abortions?

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

Either way I explained to you already why being pro-UHC and being pro-choice are not positions which are in opposing of each other which was the question you posed. They're not even within the same paradigm. The government doesn't fund abortions and pro-choice is a matter of whether or not you should make reproductive decisions based on the beliefs, customs and values of other people. As of today there are millions of poor Americans who regardless of their position on abortion had to choose whether or not to have an abortion. For whatever reason they claim. It doesn't matter how religious the religious aren't above 'the choice' in any way. Matter of fact they have just as many abortions as the non-religious. Your question is a false dichotomy.
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious how many people are pro-choice and support UHC. I can't honestly see how someone can say "It's my body, it's my choice" and "It's between me and my doctor" when it comes to abortion, but can allow the government to interfere when it comes to UHC. Because if UHC passes, it will no longer be "your choice", it will be the "government's choice" in regards to what they want to pay for. It will no longer be a choice that you and your doctor make because the bureaucracy of government is now the ultimate voice in the matter.

This is exactly how it is now except an insurance company is deciding. I trust the government more than an insurance company who is focused on profit. I also don't think anyone will be forced to use UHC.
 
Back
Top Bottom