link
One more reason to thwart Obama and the far left when it comes to a public or single payor plan.
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 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.
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.Yep, we have pregnant women dying left and right in the US.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.![]()








