The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on July 22, 2009, 03:54:54 PM
-
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-22-09 12:13 AM
Original message
Would you be happy if you had a truly affordable health plan that covered 99%
Edited on Wed Jul-22-09 12:20 AM by pnwmom
of your lifetime care?
What if the 1% was due to the exclusion of non-medically necessary abortions (medically necessary including for mental health)? And/or other medically non-necessary procedures?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6120046
shraby (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-22-09 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Nope, by its very definition, an abortion demands
a doctor and medical care. If a procedure is considered medical, it would be necessary to have a doctor and medical care. I think a plan should be 100% and the American people have an economy that would pay for it. Some things other than medical care would have to be cut..the F-22 fighter jets were a good start. Making mining companies pay the back "rent" on their leased public land would be another place to find funds..catching up on tax-dodging off shore bank accounts would be another. I could probably name a hundred cuts that can be made without even thinking hard that the government can get the funds from.
The secret service protection afforded to v.p. Cheney recently is another. Use the regular prison system for officials who break the law instead of giving them plush jails in which to incarcerate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-22-09 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. So does a nose job or liposuction. Should that be included, too?
Edited on Wed Jul-22-09 03:10 AM by pnwmom
If someone really really hates his nose, but there's nothing physically wrong with it?
I think many people are in the broad middle ground on abortion. They think women should have the right to choose -- but they might not want their taxes to go for paying for unnecessary abortions -- for example, abortions of fetuses that are healthy girls because the parents prefer a boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Luminous Animal (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-22-09 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. This is pathetic.
Are you trying to say that women have abortions because they hate the fetus? Abortions and birth control are reproductive health care. Health care. Not cosmetic surgery. And I call bullshit on your fear-mongering scenario. It's akin to the ticking time bomb scenario that has led this nation to openly debate the efficacy of torture. Long on fantasy, short on probability.
If they can't have free abortions, then they don't want any free health care. :mental:
-
Reality and consequences..........it burns.
-
They just don't get it, do they?
-
If we could have free mandatory abortions on liberals retroactive to the year 1900, I might just go along.
.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6120046
If they can't have free abortions, then they don't want any free health care. :mental:
Obama's Solution: Free rusty coat hangers for all female DUmmies.
-
Reality and consequences..........it burns.
don't worry dumbs, abortion is safe, its the unnecessary things like disalysis and pain meds that will get axed