rehmwa 2 #26 December 8, 2009 QuoteIt would seem that simply eliminating public funding for abortions would solve the problem, but that option doesn't seem to be occurring to either side. amazing how the obvious solutions are so difficult ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #27 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt would seem that simply eliminating public funding for abortions would solve the problem, but that option doesn't seem to be occurring to either side. amazing how the obvious solutions are so difficult But it gets a bit more involved. You have a gov't subsidized insurance market. There will be some companies that offer abortion coverage on the roster unless this verbage is included. Who decides what is gov't money and what is private?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #28 December 8, 2009 >You have a gov't subsidized insurance market. There will be some >companies that offer abortion coverage on the roster unless this verbage >is included. Who decides what is gov't money and what is private? If you pay your money to an insurance company it's private. If the government pays money to provide you with insurance it's government money. That seems pretty simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #29 December 8, 2009 Quote> several democrats have said that under no circumstance would >they vote for a bill that does not cover abortion. Name one. i need to retract this statement as i did not properly verify its accuracy before posting it, my fault. Quote > i'm not sure why those on that side of things would let this >issue stand in the way of getting something passed. Because republicans have introduced an amendment that would ban coverage for abortions in private plans as well. That's what people are opposing - a ban on ANY coverage for abortion, even through your own healthcare provider. i'me still a little unclear on this. i looks to like the amendment is only banning abortion coverage for plans subsidized by public funds. i welcome a clarification on this. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #30 December 8, 2009 Might not be that simple Bill. What if I need some credits from the government to buy insurance? I pay my money to the insurance company of my choice and get subsidized for my purchase. It's blurry.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #31 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuotetax dollars definately should not fund elective abortions. Fine; then tax dollars also shouldn't be used to fund elective wars to satisfy some under-qualified alcoholic's Oedipus complex. buried under the snarkiness in your statement, you do bring up a valid point of discussion with reguard to what kinds of this should and shouldn't be covered by tax dollars. do you want to bring it up in a serious post, or do you just want to leave it at that? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 December 8, 2009 Quote Pro-lifers want all coverage banned. Pro-choicers want abortions covered in every plan including government plans. It would seem that simply eliminating public funding for abortions would solve the problem, but that option doesn't seem to be occurring to either side. Eliminating public funding effectively eliminates it for the poor. So it's hardly a surprise that this isn't an attractive option to the pro choice and pro woman groups. procedure cost is $500-1000 for 1st trimester, up to 10k for second trimester. As discussed, if this is really about money, and not legislating morality, then funding abortions makes more sense. As well as birth control. And if it's about morality, then viagra probably shouldn't be covered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #33 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotetax dollars definately should not fund elective abortions. Fine; then tax dollars also shouldn't be used to fund elective wars to satisfy some under-qualified alcoholic's Oedipus complex. buried under the snarkiness in your statement, you do bring up a valid point of discussion with reguard to what kinds of this should and shouldn't be covered by tax dollars. do you want to bring it up in a serious post, or do you just want to leave it at that? Well, if I wanted to leave the humor out of it, and phrase it strictly seriously, I'd say that it's inconsistent, and perhaps even hypocritical, to condemn using tax dollars to fund an elective act that Group A considers to be a moral outrage (elective abortion), while at the same time tolerating or facilitating the use of tax dollars to fund an elective act that Group B considers to be a moral outrage (elective wars). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #34 December 8, 2009 > What if I need some credits from the government to buy insurance? 1) I have not heard that credits (i.e.instruments with monetary value paid for by the government) will be issued to people under this plan. Do you have a reference to this? 2) If that is the case, then you disallow use of those credits to cover that part of the policy that covers abortion. Would be a pain in the butt, and would increase costs, but presumably it's important enough to pro-lifers that they're willing to pay the additional $. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #35 December 8, 2009 >Eliminating public funding effectively eliminates it for the poor. True (although that's the case now.) >And if it's about morality, then viagra probably shouldn't be covered. WHOA THERE! Ban abortion funding all you like, but don't you touch people's Viagra! That affects men! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 December 8, 2009 Quotewhile at the same time tolerating or facilitating the use of tax dollars to fund an elective act that Group B considers to be a moral outrage (elective wars). Article I, section 2.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #37 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuotewhile at the same time tolerating or facilitating the use of tax dollars to fund an elective act that Group B considers to be a moral outrage (elective wars). Article I, section 2. Do you mean Article 2? But in any event, I wasn't referring to legalities, for Roe v. Wade deemed abortion lawful, too. I'm referring to people's ethical objections at having tax dollars spent on something that they personally find morally outrageous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotewhile at the same time tolerating or facilitating the use of tax dollars to fund an elective act that Group B considers to be a moral outrage (elective wars). Article I, section 2. Do you mean Article 2? But in any event, I wasn't referring to legalities, for Roe v. Wade deemed abortion lawful, too. I'm referring to people's ethical objections at having tax dollars spent on something that they personally find morally outrageous. Ah. So, you have no problem with the Hyde Amendment, then?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 December 8, 2009 Quote>Eliminating public funding effectively eliminates it for the poor. True (although that's the case now.) Yes. But the point of this trillion dollar turkey was to improve matters, right? Quote >And if it's about morality, then viagra probably shouldn't be covered. WHOA THERE! Ban abortion funding all you like, but don't you touch people's Viagra! That affects men! Essentially the point raised by those who wanted birth control pills covered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #40 December 8, 2009 QuoteAh. So, you have no problem with the Hyde Amendment, then? I'm not sure. I hate the abortion debate, and usually just try to steer clear of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #41 December 8, 2009 >But the point of this trillion dollar turkey was to improve matters, right? Yes. Many on the right wing do not want this particular situation improved, and many on the left are willing to accommodate their desires as long as other improvements are left in place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 December 8, 2009 Quote>But the point of this trillion dollar turkey was to improve matters, right? Yes. Many on the right wing do not want this particular situation improved, and many on the left are willing to accommodate their desires as long as other improvements are left in place. Incorrect. Many on the right do not agree that THIS is the way to improve this particular situation.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,162 #43 December 8, 2009 >Many on the right do not agree that THIS is the way to improve >this particular situation. Fair enough. And like I said, many on the left are willing to accept that to get the majority of the bill passed. (Needless to say, some on the right actually don't want anything at all to change, and may be using this as an excuse to try to scuttle the whole thing - and will mightily resent any attempts at bipartisanship. Hopefully these people are in the minority.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,201 #44 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhile at the same time tolerating or facilitating the use of tax dollars to fund an elective act that Group B considers to be a moral outrage (elective wars). Article I, section 2. Do you mean Article 2? But in any event, I wasn't referring to legalities, for Roe v. Wade deemed abortion lawful, too. I'm referring to people's ethical objections at having tax dollars spent on something that they personally find morally outrageous. Ah. So, you have no problem with the Hyde Amendment, then? Ah, good old Henry Hyde, a typical Republican; legislating morality for others while being an adulterer himself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewhile at the same time tolerating or facilitating the use of tax dollars to fund an elective act that Group B considers to be a moral outrage (elective wars). Article I, section 2. Do you mean Article 2? But in any event, I wasn't referring to legalities, for Roe v. Wade deemed abortion lawful, too. I'm referring to people's ethical objections at having tax dollars spent on something that they personally find morally outrageous. Ah. So, you have no problem with the Hyde Amendment, then? Ah, good old Henry Hyde, a typical Republican; legislating morality for others while being an adulterer himself. Ah, good old kallend - bringing in non-sequiturs to 'shoot the messenger'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #46 December 9, 2009 QuoteQuote Pro-lifers want all coverage banned. Pro-choicers want abortions covered in every plan including government plans. It would seem that simply eliminating public funding for abortions would solve the problem, but that option doesn't seem to be occurring to either side. Eliminating public funding effectively eliminates it for the poor. So it's hardly a surprise that this isn't an attractive option to the pro choice and pro woman groups. procedure cost is $500-1000 for 1st trimester, up to 10k for second trimester. . If people feel strongly about this, they can form a Nnon-government foundation to pay for this voluntarily & not force the rest of us to do it. Some of us do not want our tax dollars to pay for abortions. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #47 December 9, 2009 QuoteSome of us do not want our tax dollars to pay for abortions. Some of us don't want our tax dollars paying for unnecessary wars, but we have little say in the matter.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #48 December 9, 2009 I don't want my tax $ going for either one, but this thread is about abortion funding, not wars. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the fetuses don't have any WMD. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #49 December 9, 2009 Quote Anyway, I'm pretty sure the fetuses don't have any WMD. Well, to be fair, neither did Iraq. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #50 December 9, 2009 Also, it seems hypocritical to be Pro-choice when it comes to the woman's decision about abortion, but then be Anti-choice when it comes to the citizen's decision about supporting it. You can't say "Keep your laws off my body" about abortion, and then turn around and pass a law requiring people to fund it. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
