Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

[swansont]

AFAIK there's nothing in the bill about covering abortions.

 

 

"There is no mandate in the [House] bill...[it] is actually neutral as to whether a federal plan, a new government or public plan, would cover abortion services or whether the government would require private plans to cover it to qualify as a basic plan. It's neutral. It doesn't say anything."

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5234637.shtml

[Pangloss]

Okay, thanks, so basically people who opt for Obamacare have to pay for their own abortions.

 

I don't know if private care covers them either, so that may well make sense.

[iNow]

It neither says they will or will not be covered. It is neutral.

[Mr Skeptic]

What do you think?

 

Maybe we may need to get people to agree to a civility statement before being allowed into town hall meetings?

[Pangloss]

It neither says they will or will not be covered. It is neutral.

 

Sure, but when it becomes a purchasable policy it will either cover abortion or it will not -- it won't be "neutral". But it's included here on this list as a "myth". I understand the technical accuracy of that statement, but I question the wisdom of using trickery and/or avoidance. Such tactics usually have consequences around election time.

 

The architects of Obamacare should state their intentions, and if necessary write them into the bill. All questions should be answered in the full light of public disclosure and discourse.

[bascule]

Sure, but when it becomes a purchasable policy it will either cover abortion or it will not -- it won't be "neutral". But it's included here on this list as a "myth". I understand the technical accuracy of that statement, but I question the wisdom of using trickery and/or avoidance. Such tactics usually have consequences around election time.

 

The architects of Obamacare should state their intentions, and if necessary write them into the bill. All questions should be answered in the full light of public disclosure and discourse.

 

Unless it's mentioned in the legislation, bringing it up is a red herring. If you have a problem with how the status quo regards abortion as a legitimate medical procedure, it's a problem with how the status quo regards abortion as a legitimate medical procedure, not a problem with the proposed legislation.

[Pangloss]

If abortions are covered in current medical care plans, then it is not a red herring -- it's a legitimate question, because it will have to either be covered or not covered under "Obamacare".

 

If it's not something that's typically covered, then it is a red herring.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's not just a red herring, it is a partisan red herring. The question was not asked out of concern for health care, but rather to increase opposition to the health care plan -- either from people in favor of abortions or against. It is irrelevant because abortions are already either covered or not covered under our current system, and the legislation says nothing about it, so no change to the status quo.

[Pangloss]

As far as I know there's no law forcing abortions to be covered by health care insurance. Insurers presumably make that decisions themselves. And since Obamacare is to be offered as a health insurance policy option (one that is subsidized by a tax), the decision would seem to rest with the policy directors of Obamacare as to whether or not it will cover abortion. Therefore the question would seem to be legitimate.

[bascule]

There are a million partisan hotbuttons that are potential things Obamacare could cover that aren't covered by insurance presently. How about sex change operations?

 

I find it ludicrous to bring these topics up with absolutely no mention of them coming out of the mouths of Democrats. Not to slippery slope you here, but there's all sorts of potential things the Democrats could do that the Republicans wouldn't like. Unless the Democrats have even mentioned in passing that they would like to do them, bringing them up is a total red herring. You might as well be bringing up that the Democrats are interested in making homosexuality mandatory.

[john5746]

There are a million partisan hotbuttons that are potential things Obamacare could cover that aren't covered by insurance presently. How about sex change operations?

 

I find it ludicrous to bring these topics up with absolutely no mention of them coming out of the mouths of Democrats. Not to slippery slope you here, but there's all sorts of potential things the Democrats could do that the Republicans wouldn't like. Unless the Democrats have even mentioned in passing that they would like to do them, bringing them up is a total red herring. You might as well be bringing up that the Democrats are interested in making homosexuality mandatory.

 

Going so far as to call it a myth is misleading though. Either abortions will be covered or the government will be deciding what services will be provided. I think it also stands to reason that health services will take a hit and there will be delays in some areas. To call these concerns myths is dishonest, IMO.

[Pangloss]

I agree with john5746.

[The Bear's Key]

As far as I know there's no law forcing abortions to be covered by health care insurance. Insurers presumably make that decisions themselves. And since Obamacare is to be offered as a health insurance policy option (one that is subsidized by a tax), the decision would seem to rest with the policy directors of Obamacare as to whether or not it will cover abortion. Therefore the question would seem to be legitimate.

I agree with Pangloss.

 

Far better to deal with the loophole now and preemt the opposition, than be accused of political scheming and calculating the "unforeseen" outcome. I am pro-choice, believing government can't dictate what natural processes occur in a human's body, yet am willing to accept the compromise: taxes don't pay to end a pregnancy if not life-threatening or abusively concieved. The pregnant women seeking termination finds her own cash for it.

 

My reason is simple. The entire issue's long been a gray area with vehement opposition...yet supported by many (even though the procedure is relatively uncommon), as its outlawing potentially affects -- in a negative manner -- the important rights dealing with a lady's own body privacy and control.

 

That we don't pay for it's not bad middle ground. (And keeping it like that doesn't change anything, more importantly)

 

So Obama needs to address the issue directly, otherwise there's a potential for accusations, resentment, and whatever ugliness to ensue.

[john5746]

So Obama needs to address the issue directly, otherwise there's a potential for accusations, resentment, and whatever ugliness to ensue.

 

Well, there can be endless debate on topics like this, I mean Jenovah's witnesses won't want to pay for blood transfusions, etc. So, I agree with Bascule that the broader idea of how to get coverage to most people should be addressed first, then battles as to what is covered will always be argued and modified. But, he will probably have to deal with the bigger hot button topics and its better to take a serious approach to them.

[bascule]

john5746, Pangloss, The Bear's Key:

 

Are you worried Obamacare will cover sex change surgeries? Why or why not?

 

What about breast enlargements? Penis enlargements? Elective amputations?

Edited August 28, 2009 by bascule

[padren]

Just out of curiosity, what do the current (albeit limited to specific groups) public options cover? Can Senators get abortions, sex change operations, breast enlargements and elective amputations? Can seniors or veterans? If no one is making a huge stink one way or the other over those plans (either for covering 'bad' things or failing to cover 'important' things) then why can't we just use that as a prototype and refine it later?

[Dudde]

I've actually been under the understanding that it would offer basic healthcare, stuff like physician visits or dental/optometry, maintenance stuff that can vastly affect your health. So far stuff like breast implants/abortions/sex changes haven't crossed my mind, those choices the patient makes personally without affecting their health (if a birth will affect the mother's health, it will be determined medically, not a choice by the mother.)

 

Is there substantial reason to believe Obama is trying to make an all encompassing healthcare plan, as opposed to just something basic?

[The Bear's Key]

My reason is simple. The entire issue's long been a gray area with vehement opposition...yet supported by many (even though the procedure is relatively uncommon), as its outlawing potentially affects....the important rights dealing with a lady's own body privacy and control.

(Just a reminder of the context for what I said)

 

Well, there can be endless debate on topics like this, I mean Jenovah's witnesses won't want to pay for blood transfusions, etc.

No long history of vehement opposition, and no rights of body privacy and control threatened.

 

john5746, Pangloss, The Bear's Key:

 

Are you worried Obamacare will cover sex change surgeries? Why or why not?

 

What about breast enlargements? Penis enlargements? Elective amputations?

No long history of vehement opposition, and no rights of body privacy and control threatened.

 

ie. no Roe vs Wade.

 

Is there substantial reason to believe Obama is trying to make an all encompassing healthcare plan, as opposed to just something basic?

Another thing Obama might need to clarify periodically, for the sake of not having wingnut leaders fill in the blanks themselves.

[bascule]

I mean seriously, I know this is a slippery slope, and I hate to use it, but Roe vs Wade aside abortion is presently an elective procedure. Why are you paying specific attention to one particular elective procedure conservatives find offensive. Why are you unconcerned about gender reassignment surgery, or boob jobs, or penile enhancements?

 

I still see no reason other than to make a cheap point, or as Pangloss would put it, a cheap "partisan" point.

[The Bear's Key]

I mean seriously, I know this is a slippery slope, and I hate to use it, but Roe vs Wade aside abortion is presently an elective procedure.

Well good thing you used it, as I didn't know that it's elective. I had thought insurance generally didn't cover it *just because*, so therefore a universal plan might -- or so I thought was the argument.

 

My bad.

 

I have to pay cash for treatments unfortunately, so I'm not as familiar with health insurance coverage in general. So if electives don't really get covered, and Obamacare doesn't plan on covering them, it's a moot point and I'm not concerned about it.

 

 

People really should chill a bit about the partisan labeling of members here though, we have similar goals and the opposition isn't the misinformed, but the misinformers...who fully know better, and poison the well intentionally spreading confusion and/or harm.

 

It's well to be pissed off by the seeming avalanche of political treachery, which is ruining good efforts/causes purposely (and it's often more frustrating when someone doesn't realize it and even happily defends them or repeats the spoon-fed propoganda). But we must care that our passions don't become a hatred transforming us into what once we hated -- for an old clichè. Or that it makes us blind to the possible ulterior actions of those offering a cure.

[Mokele]

but Roe vs Wade aside abortion is presently an elective procedure.

 

Not always. While they aren't the majority of cases, IIRC, a substantial fraction of abortions are due to medical necessity (i.e. horrific deformities which would literally rip the mother apart from the inside were she to try and birth it).

[bascule]

Not always. While they aren't the majority of cases, IIRC, a substantial fraction of abortions are due to medical necessity (i.e. horrific deformities which would literally rip the mother apart from the inside were she to try and birth it).

 

And perhaps those are exactly the cases people have been blustering about Obamacare covering.

 

What kind of f*cked up moral high horse do you have to be on to say that the state shouldn't cover abortion in that kind of case?

[The Bear's Key]

And perhaps those are exactly the cases people have been blustering about Obamacare covering.

 

What kind of f*cked up moral high horse do you have to be on to say that the state shouldn't cover abortion in that kind of case?

It's possible there's no horse, of course. Of course, such would happen only if we learn those aren't the kinds of cases people are blustering about.

[Pangloss]

What kind of f*cked up moral high horse do you have to be on to say that the state shouldn't cover abortion in that kind of case?

 

Absolutely.

 

Which is exactly why you want the public debate -- to address questions like that one right there.

[iNow]

I believe at that point the conversation switches from one of abortion to one of required life saving procedures for the pregnant female.

 

I tend to agree with Bascule that this whole thing is rather moot... or, at least a red herring which has little to do with change to our healthcare setup, and should be addressed separately.