It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by Roadblockx

Sounds good to me.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:42 AM
reply to post by Syrus Magistus

I'll humor you. I don't believe any of this story matters a whole lot. I already posted my opinions elsewhere, but let me add something else: Are not "Christian Identity" AND "antiabortionists" listed in the MIAC report? Is it possible that topics like this are fishing expeditions to add to the watch lists? Think about it.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Roadblockx

I'm not sure what kind of reaction or posts this thread will yield but I thought it would at least be worth a shot to put this out there.

The premise of the article is basically false. Please review this analysis. There are different versions running around Congress so its hard to know what will be the final version, but 'they' are working to make it equivalent to the current status.

A quote from the above linked article:

Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, which opposes abortion, said his group doesn't want to see an important health care plan derailed by a "misleading campaign" that claims the health care plan would mean taxpayer-subsidized abortions. "The goal should be to maintain the current policies," Korzen said. "That Capps Amendment accomplishes just that. It specifically prohibits taxpayers funding of abortions. It disappoints me that there are people who are still making that claim."

While I don't agree with the expansion of government/BHO insurance since the gov has never managed anything that has been profitable or on budget, I really don't agree that I should be paying for abortions. This isn't about the RIGHT to have one, I am strictly keeping this issue to the American public having to PAY for them.


You are misinformed about the efficiency of Government run programs, especially with respect to Health Insurance. While there is some debate about the exact number (the 2% public cost costs versus the 20 to 30% private insurance costs most quoted are under challenge), there is no question that Medicare is more efficient than private insurers.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:08 AM
reply to post by rnaa

Not so sure you are right about Medicaid being "successful" because it sucks a little less then private health-care.

Part of the problem is that government operates from a "spend it or lose it" mentality and the private sector operates from "make money or lose the business". Completely different business models and business plans. After working in local and state government agencies for 9 years now (ugh, where did time go), I can see first hand that when we purchase IT equipment, it doesn't have to meet the same goals that it does when I consult with private business. Because of that fundimental difference in their respective business model leads one to see why nothing the government manages is profitable. It's against their very business model.

With that said, I provide a couple of article outlining the failures of medicaid.

Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
and finally
Exhibit 3.

Now I am not defending the private sector's health care as I am pissed beyond belief on how my costs have gone up. I think rather then implementing a government based nation-wide health care plan which we all "should" know will not be ran well at all, there should be a panel put together to rework the health-care system.

Who should be on the panel? Give me your suggestions. Health-care pro's, insurance reps, citizen watch-guard groups....??

edits due to drinking at 10am... not really
[edit on 10-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by Roadblockx

I agree.. but you know what... the Bill that's before congress right now actually has that panel you are talking about.

It's to be made of 18 private industry folks and 8 federal employees.

I think it's a good step...

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

That would be great. Do you have any links on who is apart of that panel? I did some searching but only found links relating to Rep and Dem groups.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by Roadblockx

It doesn't say WHO, just who will be appointing the people.

So in theory, it's a great idea. Maybe that's part of what should get ironed out prior to voting on the bill.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:18 PM
The bottom line of anti-Medicaid is very straightforward : the poor die sooner.

Three types of people get the every worst healthcare : the very poor, the very rich, and the very famous.

There is nothing intrinsically flawed with the idea of all people having access to health. Abortion is a very emotive issue - consider this : the Government has no right to dictate to you how you live your life. Abortion is an issue not of medicine, but of morality. What is your morality is not necessarily anyone elses.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by SpacePunk

Actually, I believe men can, as long as they are willing to legally sign away their rights. Though this could be different from state to state. I have known men who happily did so.

Harm None

top topics

<< 8  9  10   >>

log in