Carol
08-23-2009, 12:15 AM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6371137)
One more reason to thwart Obama and the far left when it comes to a public or single payor plan.
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 07:59 PM
Original message
It makes no sense for any health plan to not pay 100% of the cost of an abortion
If a child is born to a subscriber of a plan the child is going to cost the plan money, providing for abortions saves a health plan (government, private or hybrid) costs. They're willing to kill babies because "it's cheaper", yet we aren't supposed to believe, despite everything they say that there will be rationing with a public or single payor plan?
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. True but this one saves the plan a lot of money.
FLDCVADem (262 posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I thought we were opposed
to insurance companies making decisions based solely on finanical interests.
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You do not want premium and/or tax dollars used wisely and efficiently?
FLDCVADem (262 posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Don't put words in my mouth
What I said was that I thought we on DU were opposed to insurance companies making decisions based purely on profit motive. Your argument is that they should do it because it is a good financial move, so are we now in favor of insurance companies making decisions based on their bottom lines?
I personally want insurance companies to provide payment for medically necessary procedures.
Lars39 (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Who are you to decide whether a woman takes the risk of death or
permanent injury that pregnancy and childbirth has? Every single pregnancy can quickly become life threatening. Abortion is part of a woman's health care options and the reasons for one should be between her and her doctor, not some medical board. Yep, we have pregnant women dying left and right in the US.:rolleyes:
One more reason to thwart Obama and the far left when it comes to a public or single payor plan.
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 07:59 PM
Original message
It makes no sense for any health plan to not pay 100% of the cost of an abortion
If a child is born to a subscriber of a plan the child is going to cost the plan money, providing for abortions saves a health plan (government, private or hybrid) costs. They're willing to kill babies because "it's cheaper", yet we aren't supposed to believe, despite everything they say that there will be rationing with a public or single payor plan?
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. True but this one saves the plan a lot of money.
FLDCVADem (262 posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I thought we were opposed
to insurance companies making decisions based solely on finanical interests.
RB TexLa (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You do not want premium and/or tax dollars used wisely and efficiently?
FLDCVADem (262 posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Don't put words in my mouth
What I said was that I thought we on DU were opposed to insurance companies making decisions based purely on profit motive. Your argument is that they should do it because it is a good financial move, so are we now in favor of insurance companies making decisions based on their bottom lines?
I personally want insurance companies to provide payment for medically necessary procedures.
Lars39 (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Who are you to decide whether a woman takes the risk of death or
permanent injury that pregnancy and childbirth has? Every single pregnancy can quickly become life threatening. Abortion is part of a woman's health care options and the reasons for one should be between her and her doctor, not some medical board. Yep, we have pregnant women dying left and right in the US.:rolleyes: