The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 87

Thread: House plan mandates payment for abortions...by all.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,960

    Default House plan mandates payment for abortions...by all.

    http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666

    http://tinyurl.com/ya7a39c

    Speaker Pelosiís Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

    Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009

    Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

    -more-

  2. #2
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666

    http://tinyurl.com/ya7a39c

    Speaker Pelosiís Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

    Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009

    Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

    -more-
    Right now,health insurance will generally pay for an abortion. What is being demanded by abortion opponents is that with enactment of health insurance reform and Federal subsidies for insurance premiums that coverage for abortions be eliminated from all insurance plans that would meet Federal requirements for coverage and therefore potentially be eligible for Federal subsidy. I personally find such an ideologically driven exclusion of coverage for a medically valid and legal procedure to be an outrageous intrusion of the government into private decisions. There is no real subsidy involved and abortions are not a significant financial component of insurance premiums now. Why not simply eliminate all insurance coverage for expenses related to pregnancy and child birth for everyone? Both abortions and child birth are elective procedures? Let people pay the costs themselves. Or let us eliminate all reimbursement under insurance programs for religiously affiliated health care providers since once there are Federal subsidies for insurance premiums, this could be considered Federal funding for religion.

    The focus of the health program is to provide "vouchers" permitting people to purchase private insurance coverage that complies with certain minimum coverage standards. In no other instance does the plan exclude or prevent insurers from offering services that are in addition to those required. If there is a public plan, it would operate by the same rules as the private plans. The insurers are charging a premium for the entire service package. The Federal subsidy is available to pay a portion of the cost for qualified families as long as the minimum package of services is part of the policy. The same amount is paid whether the policy offers only the minimum services or offers the minimum services plus whatever else the insurer wishes to include. I do not see how the Federal subsidy could, therefore, be considered to be a subsidy of any of these optional services. The entire abortion issue is a red herring.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    This nation needs Osamacare or Pelosicare like the Boston symphony needs a kazoo player. Why don't the democrat leaders in both houses listen to the 56%+ percent of the people who want no part in this boondoggle?
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Why not simply eliminate all insurance coverage for expenses related to pregnancy and child birth for everyone? Both abortions and child birth are elective procedures? Let people pay the costs themselves. Or let us eliminate all reimbursement under insurance programs for religiously affiliated health care providers since once there are Federal subsidies for insurance premiums, this could be considered Federal funding for religion.
    Which one of the examples that you gave as comparison to abortion directly strip the basic right to life from a human being?

    I'm waiting.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    You will wait till hades freezes over for an answer to that question from anyone on the left.
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,960

    Default

    Jeff-

    In my 20+ years of operating email lists, the phrase "The entire X issue is a red herring." is usually an indicator that the poster is unable to counter the argument with logic. By declaring it a red herring they are dismissing the issue or the poster or both. Truly, you can do better.

    The issue is not whether insurance will or will not pay for an abortion. The issue is whether or not I must contribute to a fund that pays for abortions. Currently I do. However, I have the choice of doing so...or not. Under the plan being discussed in the House, I won't have that choice.

    Eric

  7. #7
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Right now,health insurance will generally pay for an abortion. What is being demanded by abortion opponents is that with enactment of health insurance reform and Federal subsidies for insurance premiums that coverage for abortions be eliminated from all insurance plans that would meet Federal requirements for coverage and therefore potentially be eligible for Federal subsidy. I personally find such an ideologically driven exclusion of coverage for a medically valid and legal procedure to be an outrageous intrusion of the government into private decisions. There is no real subsidy involved and abortions are not a significant financial component of insurance premiums now. Why not simply eliminate all insurance coverage for expenses related to pregnancy and child birth for everyone? Both abortions and child birth are elective procedures? Let people pay the costs themselves. Or let us eliminate all reimbursement under insurance programs for religiously affiliated health care providers since once there are Federal subsidies for insurance premiums, this could be considered Federal funding for religion.

    The focus of the health program is to provide "vouchers" permitting people to purchase private insurance coverage that complies with certain minimum coverage standards. In no other instance does the plan exclude or prevent insurers from offering services that are in addition to those required. If there is a public plan, it would operate by the same rules as the private plans. The insurers are charging a premium for the entire service package. The Federal subsidy is available to pay a portion of the cost for qualified families as long as the minimum package of services is part of the policy. The same amount is paid whether the policy offers only the minimum services or offers the minimum services plus whatever else the insurer wishes to include. I do not see how the Federal subsidy could, therefore, be considered to be a subsidy of any of these optional services. The entire abortion issue is a red herring.

    All you need to know about the guy, right there!!

    Child birth and abortion moral equivalancy judgement by the "Sole Possesor of the Truth!!"

    Pathetic.

    It might shock you to know that some of us respect life, even nonviable tissue mass'.
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #8
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Actually, it's not an issue of moral equivalency at all. Abortion, whether you like it or not, is a completely legal medical procedure. For as long as that is true, it has the same status as any other medical procedure, whether that be a tonsillectomy or a heart bypass. For those who believe that abortions are a form of murder, the answer is simple -- convince enough people to change the law and it can be driven back into the alleys where our children can risk their futures and their lives to end pregnancies with which they cannot live. Personally, I remember the pre-Roe v. Wade world too well to ever want to see it return.

    However, as long as the procedure remains legal, one should be careful about which approaches are used in efforts to make it more difficult. For each such road sets a precedent that will inevitably be used against some other procedure in the future. Maybe the next target will be birth control or sterilization procedures, or maybe even child birth expenses for any more than ten (nine, eight, seven....) children because why should we all have to subsidize the irresponsible profligacy of the few?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver CANADA
    Posts
    644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth View Post
    This nation needs Osamacare or Pelosicare like the Boston symphony needs a kazoo player. Why don't the democrat leaders in both houses listen to the 56%+ percent of the people who want no part in this boondoggle?
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/ma...this-year.aspx
    power without lumber, raciness without weediness

    A big man never looks down on others.... instead, he is someone to look up to.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    Not according to Rassmussen.
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

Similar Threads

  1. Catholic-abortions...?!
    By Keith Farmer in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-15-2009, 05:35 PM
  2. Payment for EIC test
    By D&S Retrievers in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-09-2008, 03:13 PM
  3. Pro Plan smoe plan
    By Steve Shaver in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 02:26 PM
  4. The IRS just released the stimulus payment schedule
    By Chris Miller in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 03:09 PM
  5. Fair payment for day use of property?
    By Kristie Wilder in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-28-2007, 10:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •