Health Care Reform and Abortion

[HydrogenBond]

With universal health care, a future possibility, one of the considerations will be cost to the tax payers. One area that might not be covered are cosmetic procedures, since this is not necessary surgery, in most cases. Since a woman has a right to chose to have an abortion, does this classify abortion as cosmetic surgery. The freedom to chose, either way, means abortion is not a procedure use to address a life threatening condition, in most cases. No matter which path one choses, in most cases, it is considered safe. Does that make is similar to other cosmetic procedures, such as breast augmentation, where women also have a right to chose, with safety similar either way. The choice is not because of a life threatening condition, but is based on subjective reasons which have little to do with health.

[Buffy]

What are you talking about?

 

Should a woman be able to have her breasts reconstructed after she has breast cancer?

 

Should a man be able to have a penis implant or get a Viagra prescription after prostate cancer?

 

Oddly enough because of such misogynistic idiocy as this, no, women can't get an abortion while men still get their Viagra.

 

The Stupak amendment is not controversial because it would prevent abortions from being paid for by public funds--something that is already completely covered by the Hyde Amendment--it would PREVENT EVEN PRIVATE INSURANCE FROM COVERING IT IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD EVEN A SINGLE DOLLAR OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR UNRELATED PROGRAMS.

 

Spreading lies to the contrary is shameful.

 

The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism, :P

Buffy

[freeztar]

:P

 

Also, what about rape cases, or cases where the mother is in danger of death or severe medical complications, from pregnancy or child birth?

 

The breast implants for surviving women of breast cancer, should be part of the procedure, and hence covered. AFAIK, there's not a bias of sexes here. A friend of mine had testicular cancer and had to have one of his testes removed. He had to pay a bunch of money to get a "pseudo-testicle" put in because his insurance covered everything but that. But I digress...

[HydrogenBond]

I wrote "in most cases", to leave the public option open for medical needs. If a woman's life was threatened by her pregnancy, this is not cosmetic. There is risk to her health and this option may be the only treatment. If a woman loses her breast(s) to breast cancer, implants are valid, since it is a valid part of the treatment process.

 

I was talking about the other 90%, that uses the umbrella arguments of the 10% that should be covered. They have the right to chose a procedure, which if they did not have it, would not cause any medical harm. Or a procedure that does not abate any unhealthy medical condition. Most cosmetic surgery, is not needed for any real health reasons.

 

Recreational drugs like viagra should not be cover by the tax payer, but should under the free market, since the goal is pleasure and not to abate disease. I would not expect the tax payer to also pay for the wine.

 

One could still have the choice to get an abortion, for cosmetic reasons, but the taxpayer doesn't have to pay. Those who really believe is the available of resources for this choice, could put their money where their mouth is. Say if 50% of American believe in this there is plenty of money for cosmetic surgery for all. But you still have to pay tax for real need.

[freeztar]

One could still have the choice to get an abortion, for cosmetic reasons, but the taxpayer doesn't have to pay. Those who really believe is the available of resources for this choice, could put their money where their mouth is. Say if 50% of American believe in this there is plenty of money for cosmetic surgery for all. But you still have to pay tax for real need.

 

Since tax money is not being spent on cosmetic surgery (AFAIK), I'm not sure why you are even bringing this up. And why do you label abortion as "cosmetic surgery"?

[Buffy]

Alas, perhaps my post or it's links prove to be to difficult for some to comprehend....although most certainly there are some who would prefer to remain willfully ignorant of the points I made.

 

Stupak will in fact eliminate coverage of abortion even in private plans that are not supported by taxpayer dollars, simply by virtue of the insurance company having separate plans (e.g. medicare- or veterans administration-related). And for any reason, "cosmetic" or not.

 

If Stupak passes, it will be an intelligent choice to invest in coat hanger companies.

 

Sounds like some people already have.

 

Leave it to a girl to take the fun out of sex discrimination, :naughty:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

I am not arguing pro-choice or pro-life. I was simply trying to put the abortion procedure into the context of other medical procedures, to see how it adds up. In most cases, but not all cases, being pregnant is not life threatening, like a heart attack or cancer. Nor does it lead to degradation of health, like the flu, which can get worse and worse.

 

Unlike cancer, the unborn is very often "heathy tissue", which poses no real medical threat to the mother (in most cases). In practical sense, it has things in common with a tummy tuck, where that little extra belly fat, is healthy tissue. It poses no risk of death, not does it pose any future medical problem. We do have the choice remove it, often for reasons not connected to health needs, even of the surgery may actually increase risks, that are not there, if nothing is done.

 

I am not saying the law of freedom of choice needs to change. I was just pointing out where in the hierarchy of medical treatment, abortion seems to be. This procedure could still be available in the private sector, like a tummy tuck. This does not affect the pro-life and pro-choice debate, which addresses the procedure. I am placing the procedure in a context.

[lemit]

I was just pointing out where in the hierarchy of medical treatment, abortion seems to be. This procedure could still be available in the private sector, like a tummy tuck. This does not affect the pro-life and pro-choice debate, which addresses the procedure. I am placing the procedure in a context.

 

You just stole my joke, that abortion is cosmetic surgery because, like liposuction, it removes unsightly inches from the waistline, occasionally with a similar procedure.

 

(I should explain that I am pro-choice, but opposed to abortion. I know, that doesn't make sense.)

 

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

Hope this interests you guys

i hope you get it right

few Countries have.

 

The Healing Of America

 

The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care, by T.R. Reid, hardcover, 277 pages, Penguin Press, list price: $25.95

 

As American voters try to sort out the highly politicized health care debate, many find it difficult to determine the truth about how well the health care system functions in other nations. Reid, a peripatetic Washington Post reporter, has done the research for American voters. The result: He exposes numerous opponents of American health care reform as liars, or at best, ill informed. Almost without exception, government-run health care overseas functions more efficiently and cost-effectively than the current American private-public hodgepodge. Reid is especially enlightening on health care in France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. He posits that a "nation's health care system reflects its moral values." If he's correct, the United States of America is morally challenged.

Fit To Print: Top Five Current Affairs Books Of 2009 : NPR

[CraigD]

Hope this interests you guys

i hope you get it right

few Countries have.

The Healing Of America

 

The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care, by T.R. Reid, hardcover, 277 pages, Penguin Press, list price: $25.95

...

Fit To Print: Top Five Current Affairs Books Of 2009 : NPR

I’ve not read Ried’s book or other writing or, more than casually, seen his films or television, but from his wikipedia page, get the impression that, on the issue of healthcare, he’s something of a less flamboyant version of Michael Moore.

 

If I’m right, folk who prefer subject documentary film to subject documentary writing, and don’t mind heavy doses of comic relief and editorial slant, can get a variation of Reid’s message from the widely shown and available 2007 film Sicko.

 

As a healthcare pro in the US for the past 25 years or so, with a bit of direct experience with the public health systems of the UK and Canada, I’m in pretty firm agreement with Reid and Moore that several countries do healthcare much better, overall, than the US, and that the US system can be brought up to match or better their standards most easily and obviously by following their centrally-administered, single-payer/employer model. Whether the US system can match or exceed the UK’s, etc, via a complicated scheme of federally regulated private insurance, with lots of support from medical IT (that’s me! :)), remains to be seen.

 

As to this thread’s original topic, abortion, I believe it’s largely a red herring in the US healthcare reform discussion. A good healthcare system improves the delivery of contraceptive services to women, which can reduce the need for the abortion of accidental or malicious pregnancies. Even if abortion is excluded as a covered benefit from some or all US health insurances, as long as it’s available at a reasonable out-of-pocket, fee-for-service cost, and health care providers are not prohibited by law from assisting patients from finding abortion providers, I believe there will be little change in abortion practices in the US. To have or not to have an abortion is an intensely personal and circumstance-dependent decision, in which cost should not be, and in my experience, rarely is, a significant factor.

[SamSpeedo]

Doctors are paid less when they accept assignment of Medicare benefits. Medicare.gov - Your Medicare Coverage

 

Government run health care will harm doctors (limits on fees instead of market forces), patients, and the general welfare.

 

Abortion is a moral choice, doctors and taxpayers must make their own choice.

[lawcat]

A good healthcare system improves the delivery of contraceptive services to women, which can reduce the need for the abortion of accidental or malicious pregnancies. Even if abortion is excluded as a covered benefit from some or all US health insurances, as long as it’s available at a reasonable out-of-pocket, fee-for-service cost, and health care providers are not prohibited by law from assisting patients from finding abortion providers, I believe there will be little change in abortion practices in the US. To have or not to have an abortion is an intensely personal and circumstance-dependent decision, in which cost should not be, and in my experience, rarely is, a significant factor.

 

Craig, here you go again making sense. But the issue that hydrogen raises is how do we differentiate from "elective" and "nonelective" procedures. Do we need to differentiate? If yes, why? and if no, why? And if we do who decides what is elective? Primary care physician? An independent council? or the abortion clinic? If nonelective is lifethreatening, is high fever life threatening? How do we prevent fraud? And where is all this in the bill, and can a regular person read and understand the bill and can the congressmen understand the bill?

[Michaelangelica]

Does anyone ever understand a bill?

Even the Supreme Court has many problems

 

Here, the woman's rights movement has a catchy phrase that they use:- "keep your rosaries off my ovaries".