So what do all you Obamanatics think about the tax payers flipping the bill for any and ALL abortions, no matter the reason? No doubt, many of you are for it. However, what about how they propose to ration care for the elderly? For example, based upon age if a patient needs a transplant, or triple bypass etc, a patient may be denied treatment.
So how about it? How is it ethical to withhold treatent from someone who may be in their 70's that may have provided them a few more years of life but to insure any and ALL abortions is perfectly acceptable?
Originally posted by whodeyI haven't heard anyone but you claim that the are suggesting footing the bill for any and all abortions. Do you have any facts to back that up?
So what do all you Obamanatics think about the tax payers flipping the bill for any and ALL abortions, no matter the reason? No doubt, many of you are for it. However, what about how they propose to ration care for the elderly? For example, based upon age if a patient needs a transplant, or triple bypass etc, a patient may be denied treatment.
So how ab ...[text shortened]... ided them a few more years of life but to insure any and ALL abortions is perfectly acceptable?
Originally posted by PsychoPawnhttp://www.laprogressive.com/2009/07/28/abortion-the-600-pound-gorilla-of-health-care-reform/
I haven't heard anyone but you claim that the are suggesting footing the bill for any and all abortions. Do you have any facts to back that up?
Here is a news source you should enjoy because it is from Carl Matthews, someone I'm sure you agree with 100%!! In it, he attacks conservatives for opposing abortion as part of the health care bill. He lambasts conservatives for the accusation that the government will get in between the patient and their doctor by countering that conservatives want to do the same in interfering with a womans right to an abortion. Of course, this falls flat on its face for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that this arguement does not refute the notion that the government will, indeed, get in between the doctor and the patient. In fact, comittees will be set up, for example, to assess whether an 80 man should have a triple bypass. Of course, if they deem him to old, he could be denied on the basis that the cost/reward ratio does not make it feasible. He then goes on to say that Congressional members like Harry Reid will see to it that abortion is covered in the new legislation. After that, he goes into a song and dance about how the church cannot dictate medical procedures!! Is this guy on crack? No Mr. Matthews, the question is who is in the greatest need? Is it the healthy woman who may give birth to a healthy baby or is it the dying man who needs a bypass? It has NOTHING to do with the freedom to have an abortion but everything to do with what the tax payer should be paying for. Should it cover elective surgies that have NOTHING to do with a situation where there is no threat to someones life?
Even though I am adamently opposed to this legislation, perhaps this will be the nail in the coffin for the abortionists. The problem right now is that the political figures who are in charge of creating this legislation have long ago sold out to the abortion industry. Therefore, they will see to it that abortions will be covered acrosse the board for anyone and for any reason. I think this time, however, they will have gone too far!!
Originally posted by whodeyWho's Carl Matthews?
http://www.laprogressive.com/2009/07/28/abortion-the-600-pound-gorilla-of-health-care-reform/
Here is a news source you should enjoy because it is from Carl Matthews, someone I'm sure you agree with 100%!!
You know so little about me, yet you assume so much.
Originally posted by whodeyI do tend to be left of center. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything everyone else who is left of center says.
From my previous encounters with you, I had you pegged for someone who is left of center. If I have misjudged you, please forgive me.
You tend to be far right of center, judging from the numerous posts I've seen from you. Does that mean you agree 100% with anything other people who are right of center say?
I'm just asking you to actually back your claims up with actual facts.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOk then, enough about us, what about the article?
I do tend to be left of center. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything everyone else who is left of center says.
You tend to be far right of center, judging from the numerous posts I've seen from you. Does that mean you agree 100% with anything other people who are right of center say?
I'm just asking you to actually back your claims up with actual facts.
All three health care reform bills currently being considered by Congress would guarantee health coverage for abortion on demand and obligate American taxpayers to foot the bill.
Numerous courts have interpreted the exact language used in the current health care reform bills as requiring health insurers to cover abortion. With court precedent already set, abortion advocates in Congress and the Administration know that even without their including the word “abortion,” the proposals as written will mandate abortion coverage.
Under Congress’ current health care reform efforts, not only could the government mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, but it would dictate that a newly created “Medical Advisory Council” determine the specific minimum benefits that a private insurance plan must provide. This unelected and unaccountable body could act with the force of government to mandate coverage for so-called “preventive” procedures and drugs that undermine respect for life. For example, it could follow the lead of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said that abortion is just another form of birth control to “reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
The bills before Congress not only permit states to fund “family planning measures” through the Medicaid program, but require health care plans to contract with “community provider” organizations such as Planned Parenthood to provide health care services.
While several pro-life Senators have offered amendments to ban taxpayer money from funding abortions, all but one HELP Committee Democrat has voted to reject the amendments. The rejection of attempts to keep abortion out of government-run health care confirms the Committee’s intent to force taxpayers to fund abortion.
Despite the insistence of Congress that all children be covered under some form of health insurance, none of the current health care reform bills cover unborn children under Medicaid.
The current health care reform bills establish Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) entities designed to compare various healthcare treatment options, drugs and procedures. Under the language of the bills, CER would effectively lead to rationing of care and outright denial of care in situations that the government determines are not cost effective. The sick, elderly and weak in our society should not be denied care based on a cost-benefit analysis.
Several HELP Committee Senators offered amendments to safeguard care for all Americans–regardless of age, life expectancy or quality of life. Yet these amendments too, as with those that would have kept abortion out of government-run health care, were rejected along party-line votes.
The health reform bills currently before Congress could strip providers of their ability to act according to their conscience. The draconian language included in the reform measures could mandate that providers perform abortions and prescribe drugs to patients or risk losing Medicare funding from the government. Congress is trampling upon the moral prerogatives of many in the medical profession by means of withholding vital funding.
Health care reform must provide broad protection for the freedom of conscience of all Americans, from providers to patients to religious entities. No one should be compelled to act contrary to his or her conscience in the payment for, provision of, or performance of health care.
Although Sen. Kennedy offered a successful amendment to his bill which would prohibit discrimination against medical providers who refuse, because of moral reasons, to perform abortions, the amendment and underlying bill still leave the door open to just such discrimination. For instance, providers who refuse to pay for or refer patients for abortion services are not covered under Kennedy’s amendment. Likewise, the amendment provides an exception for “cases of emergency,” which can be stretched to fit almost any situation, effectively stripping providers of any protection the amendment may have offered them. Medical providers need true rights of conscience protection and an ability to meaningfully object to performing abortions.
http://www.keepabortionoutofhealthcare.com/?page_id=66
Originally posted by utherpendragonSo abortion will be justified as a "preventitive" treatment rather than an invasive and elective surgical procedure? My only question is, what is considered preventitive? In fact, a triple bypass could be considered "preventitive" could it not? I can see them justifying this by taking the abortion pill, for example, but not a surgical procedure to end a pregnancy.
[b]All three health care reform bills currently being considered by Congress would guarantee health coverage for abortion on demand and obligate American taxpayers to foot the bill.
Numerous courts have interpreted the exact language used in the current health care reform bills as requiring health insurers to cover abortion. With court precedent alre ...[text shortened]... is just another form of birth control to “reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
Just let them deny the elderly care based upon their age. The term evil conservative will soon disappear altoghether in favor of the EVIL liberal abortionists who lets the elderly die based upon feasability.
I think the two issues are closely related in that the unborn as well as the elderly are, in fact, human beings. The problem is that they have no value to many within society at large. Perhaps if they were productive tax payers the government would seek to protect them?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn Iran the abortion rate is zero percent, so I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of oranges.
In the Netherlands, abortions are covered by insurance. Abortion rates are seven times lower than in the US.
And what does rationing have to do with all this? What is this obsession with "rationing"? Health care is not infinite, so it has to be rationed in one way or the other.
What does rationing have to do with this? It has everything to do wtih this because the lines must be drawn as to who is worthy to be covered as well as which procedures to cover. As it stands now, they seem to be saying they will elect to cover a healthy woman aborting a healthy fetus but perhaps not your grandpa getting a pace maker or bypass who is dying.
Originally posted by whodeyIn Iran the abortion rate is most certainly not zero percent.
In Iran the abortion rate is zero percent, so I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of oranges.
What does rationing have to do with this? It has everything to do wtih this because the lines must be drawn as to who is worthy to be covered as well as which procedures to cover. As it stands now, they seem to be saying they will elect to cover a he ...[text shortened]... rting a healthy fetus but perhaps not your grandpa getting a pace maker or bypass who is dying.
And you infer that what "they are saying" from a right wing blog, I am sure. What are the plans exactly?
I had a dream last night where government health care paid for all abortions on demand. To fund the huge backlog the government raises Whodey's taxes to pay for them all. Not everybody's taxes, mind you, just Whodey's. He takes on two jobs to pay for the sprawling bureaucratic abortion industry, but still can't make ends meet. Beaten down and impoverished, Whodey files for bankruptcy and ends up in debtor's prison where he makes license plates for 7¢ an hour. This, of course, is promptly confiscated to pay for more abortions. At his license stamping machine there is a counter that keeps track of all the plates he has made. 100 license plates per day, 36,500 plates per year. Year after year. And every 100 plates he stamps out pays for another abortion...
But then I woke up.
Originally posted by rwingettI had a dream too. I was playing a guitar down town on a public street corner trying to make a tax free living as I didn't wish to pay taxes for abortions anymore. I only had a couple of bucks in my can when whodey pulled up in a beat up chevy pickup with grass clippings and a lawn mower in the back. He hollered come mow lawns with me, there's more money in it! I was putting my guitar in the case and then I woke up as FMF's last avatar was screaming at us.
I had a dream last night where government health care paid for all abortions on demand. To fund the huge backlog the government raises Whodey's taxes to pay for them all. Not everybody's taxes, mind you, just Whodey's. He takes on two jobs to pay for the sprawling bureaucratic abortion industry, but still can't make ends meet. Beaten down and impoverished, ar. And every 100 plates he stamps out pays for another abortion...
But then I woke up.
Originally posted by utherpendragonutherpendragon,
All three health care reform bills currently being considered by Congress would guarantee health coverage for abortion on demand and obligate American taxpayers to foot the bill.
Numerous courts have interpreted the exact language used in the current health care reform bills as requiring health insurers to cover abortion. With court precedent alre ...[text shortened]... ngfully object to performing abortions.
http://www.keepabortionoutofhealthcare.com/?page_id=66
Your objection has NOTHING to do with your tax dollars going to pay for abortion. Don't believe me? Here, I'll prove it.
Take the cost of an abortion and subract that from all costs of prenatal care, the child birth, postnatal care and of course coverage on the child.
So you'd rather force all of us to pay significantly more tax dollars in order to enforce your view of morality, and I would rather us pay significantly LESS tax dollars in order to grant women their RIGHT as guaranteed under the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade.
Can you cast aside the smokescreen issue now?