New Rasmussen Pole-

[buckman]

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

A little something picked up with the requisite 2 seconds on Google.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

A little something picked up with the requisite 2 seconds on Google.

You said Federal funds. This article appears to be referencing a government sponsored plan which would be paid for by companies or individuals. This doesn't mean that any more tax (i.e. general fund) money is being spent on abortions.

I'd also note that abortion is quite legal in all 50 states.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You said Federal funds. This article appears to be referencing a government sponsored plan which would be paid for by companies or individuals. This doesn't mean that any more tax (i.e. general fund) money is being spent on abortions.

I'd also note that abortion is quite legal in all 50 states.

-spence

I will bet $100.00 to anyone who will bet that a health plan signed be Obama WON'T increase the availability of $$$ for abortions.

[scottw]

exactly Buck

He claims, "...coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false."

The bill does not exclude payment for abortions, and the sponsors specifically defeated amendments that would have prohibited it, Obama has already declared that he believes that "reproductive healthcare" is basic to healthcare, and the bill would allow the government to define "healthcare". So do you believe him when he says "no", or when he says "yes", to the same question. The answer depends on whether its and odd day or an even day. This is the Infatnticide President afterall, who believes that a baby can be a punishment...

[spence]

Out of one side you claim anybody who parses Obama's words to clarify intent is manipulating the facts.

But then you feel perfectly at home to apply any intent you desire because of course, it's who Obama is.

You guys are total hypocrites.

-spence

[scottw]

I'd call it looking at his track record and with whom he associates with since you can't ever trust the words of a congenital liar...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'd call it looking at his track record and with whom he associates with since you can't ever trust the words of a congenital liar...

Some of you make the left wing Bush haters look like quite civil.

-spence

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by scottw

I'd call it looking at his track record and with whom he associates with since you can't ever trust the words of a congenital liar...

Not a liar in the truest sense of the word, but if you look at his track record and his associates you will understand what his ideals are and that he will say anything to achieve those goals. Unfortuately that's what the Sheeple didn't see when they voted...... 1-20-2013 can't get here fast enough.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

The bill does not exclude payment for abortions, and the sponsors specifically defeated amendments that would have prohibited it

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

Johnny, you just don't get it.

As we've learned from the members of this site, the fundamental problem with the health care proposal is that it's an unnecessary Government intrusion into our lives.

That is precisely why it's necessary for the Government to restrict your choices versus an already regulated private insurance plan on this issue. Because Nanci Pelosi won't stop until every fetus is dead.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

So you think any legal medical procedure should be covered by health insurance? If it's an elective procedure it shouldn't be covered. In the cases where abortion is covered now (rape, incest), it should still be covered under any plan. If it's just because people were being stupid and careless, they can pay for it out of their pockets.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

So you think any legal medical procedure should be covered by health insurance? If it's an elective procedure it shouldn't be covered. In the cases where abortion is covered now (rape, incest), it should still be covered under any plan. If it's just because people were being stupid and careless, they can pay for it out of their pockets.

It was moreso an extension of my previous comment. Probably should have said "Exactly why should any legal medical procedure *that's covered by other providers* be excluded".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

aren't medical procedures suppose to improve your health?

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

Ok,, what about "adda#^&#^&#^&#^&tome's" or "chopa#^&#^&#^&#^&offame's"? should legal sex change operations be covered? Where does it end?

In the civilian run systems, you choose the one that provides what you decide you want...

with a government run system, they and only they would decide what is and isnt covered... at least with our substandard plans we have now, we have choices to alter or get plans we like.

Give people "tax free" accounts similar to IRA's that can only be used "tax free" to cover medical accounts for routine care and only provide a catastrophic plan for everyone. Routine stuff should be paid for or covered by your health savings accounts,,,

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Ok,, what about "adda#^&#^&#^&#^&tome's" or "chopa#^&#^&#^&#^&offame's"? should legal sex change operations be covered? Where does it end?

You obviously didn't read the entire thread.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

A little something picked up with the requisite 2 seconds on Google.

I'd be curious when this was written and if it is actually based on a specific section of the proposed bill or some anti-abortion activist that's pissed any type of abortion will be allowed under the new plan.

My understanding (and I could be wrong because that section of the bill isn't important to me) was that there is no blank check for abortions under the current proposal, just as there isn't under any private company.

Abortion is a part of health care, and I believe all the major insurance companies cover the cost of at least 1 per year. We'll leave the disgusting fact that someone would need more than one/year aside.

But my point is that in the abortion aspect, neither the House or Senate proposals have clauses that go above and beyond what a standard HC company pays for now.

And as Spence mentioned, abortions are legal - and confirmed on more than one occasion by the Supreme Court.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'd be curious when this was written and if it is actually based on a specific section of the proposed bill or some anti-abortion activist that's pissed any type of abortion will be allowed under the new plan.

The current limitations on Federal funds for abortion primarily deals with Medicaid, the idea being that people too poor to have health insurance shouldn't have the taxpayer funding an elective abortion.

The pro-life advocates say this should extend to any Government plan regardless of how it's structured or who's paying the bill.

If private insurance has provisions for limited abortion, and a Government sponsored plan is a good method to reduce costs through competition, then the idea that a Government sponsored plan (funded by the insured) should be prohibited from similar limited coverage...doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence