It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium


Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.


Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

I feel I should have a choice when it is my tax dollars,

I know this is a touchy subject for many so that's all I am going to say.

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:h3962ih.txt.pdf

line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed”

[edit on 113030p://bThursday2009 by Stormdancer777]




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Playing Devil's Advocate here:

How much would it cost in tax payer money to raise these unwanted children in a orphanage? If we are going solely on tax payer cost, then the abortion seems much more affordable.

Just sayin'

EDIT: wanted to add that MY opinion is that an abortion is "elective" and elective procedures should not be covered on a public plan...otherwise, we might as well pay for plastic surgery too.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
If an abortion means lower costs in the long run, saved money can be then be applied to saving more lives, which means the net total is positive.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



If an abortion means lower costs in the long run, saved money can be then be applied to saving more lives, which means the net total is positive.


Isn't the above basically saying that in order to save lives, you have to kill off other lives?

I'm undecided on this issue. I don't believe in abortions, but I don't believe in telling a woman what to do with her body either. Very difficult decision IMO.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


The previous posters are MAD.

MONEY IS STUPID and you people have proven it.

Since when does money mean more than life?!

This plan is complete and utter evil irony. How can killing be made okay and beyond that, how can we pay to ensure the murder of people, and beyond that, our own people - UNDER THE GUISE OF "Health" and "Care".

If there was an option that giving my life meant no more abortions, I would do it in a heart-beat. There is no such option.

Allow me to elaborate on money. Money = Time + work. You are saying you'd rather save more of your time and work than to allow people to be born to live. What hypocrites you are. Life must be so good for the people who think it's not worth sharing with others.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by TarzanBeta]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
are you serious?....health care is denied to kids that have already been born and has resulted in untold deaths because of it, and yet you don't want any tax dollars being spent on abortions, because that would kill unborn fetuses?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Life...such precious feelings for life while you eat hamburgers and chop down trees.

Oh, human life...I find it funny the people most supporting anti-choice are typically pro-warfare and death penelty.

But anyhow, a abortion is little more than ending replicating cells before they have a chance to become a human being. Now, mid/late term abortion I guess can be made into an argument of how it is already a life form because of a central nervous system allowing experiencing...

But early stages is like saying masturbation is mass murder..sure, there is potential for life for each sperm, but...come on now.

As far as you having a say in where your taxes go...you do, its called voting...majority rules



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 



Since when does money mean more than life?!


In my book it doesn't. Like I said, I don't believe in abortions.

But I ask you, would you like somebody to force you to do something you don't want to do?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You don't know much about abortions.

Deny ignorance and end your blissful selfishness.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Unless someone forced you to spread your legs, you made the choice!!!!!

In the case of a rape, I might be more inclined to think there is a "gray area".



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Really...? You justify paying to kill a baby rather than to keep one alive in the name of .... preventing a child from suffering?

For those of you who claim it is in good conscience to kill before a person is able to suffer, can I ask you why your parents didn't abort?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


From a man's point of view.

I have had three ex-girlfriends get an abortion while I was with them. They each had their own reason. I didn't like the idea one bit. I begged them not to, but their minds were made up. I even offered to take care of my child all by myself. Still not good enough.

There was virtually no way, short of imprisoning and monitoring them 24 hours a day, that I could change their minds.

Maybe if the court would allow a potential father to have a say so in the baby both individuals created, their would be less abortions.

Thanks for your reply.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I am sorry to say that I know exactly how you feel.

And no, you can't force someone to make the right or good decision. However, according to this new legislation, I would be FORCED to pay for something that is not right. I am being forced to make a bad decision. That is wrong.

Look, if you want to be evil and selfish and slutty, then you are creating your own horrible future, and I feel sorry for you and can't do much more than that. But for you to tell me that I am a contributor in the death of people who might very well be GOOD or BAD (Just like all of the people on this planet are already), then you are literally insane. Btw, I am not referring to you specifically, I mean 'you' generally.

I am very proud to announce that I have a beautiful wife who would never in her life dream of, no matter what the circumstances, killing another person unless it is completely understood that her life or the life of her family is in immediate jeopardy. These are my beliefs as well, and I believe they are not just beliefs, but a moral code that exists for a reason. Anyone who does not adhere to this moral code, which exists for obvious reasons, is simply acting against life, freedom, and humanity.

I cannot even participate in this thread anymore. It actually makes me physically sick.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by TarzanBeta]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Ok, I don't know if you are familiar with the abortion clause that falls under Medicare, this up to the states to define, and yes abortion in case of incest, rape, life threatening for the mother and others is included.

Those conditions should be covered regardless, I don't agree with elective abortion to be paid by tax payer.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Isn't the above basically saying that in order to save lives, you have to kill off other lives?


Yes, although this is a highly unpleasant topic by any measure... Because "saving lives" is always a game of limited resources. For one saved life here in the US you can save 50 in a third world country by installing a water purification system etc. I'm not saying that this is what you should do (or anybody), I'm saying this sort of ethics problems are simply intractable.


I'm undecided on this issue. I don't believe in abortions, but I don't believe in telling a woman what to do with her body either. Very difficult decision IMO.


Yeah, I totally understand



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
are you serious?....health care is denied to kids that have already been born and has resulted in untold deaths because of it, and yet you don't want any tax dollars being spent on abortions, because that would kill unborn fetuses?


Every child in this country has their Health Care paid for through the SCHIP program.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Its wrong to make people pay for something that goes against their beliefs.

It shouldn't matter if it is a womans choice to have an abortion, thats all fine and good. If Johnny Catholic believes abortions are against his beliefs then how are you going to force him to pay for one?

An abortion should be listed under elected procedures and the cost should come out of their pockets.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RDR17
Every child in this country has their Health Care paid for through the SCHIP program.



No, they don't. It covers about 10 million children in low income families. Anyone earning better than minimum wage generally doesn't qualify for SCHIP.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
That link is to a Senate bill not the House bill. Good lord can the Republicans oppose something without having to lie and make up stories about it to scare people? Shame on ATS'rs who post anything negative against Obama whether it is real or not. Denying Ignorance means telling the truth, not just any propaganda that fits your agenda.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
An abortion should be listed under elected procedures and the cost should come out of their pockets.



A real simple solution would just be to let the doctors decide. If it's elective the customer pays, if there's a medical or hardship reason the insurance pays.

I can't believe they're even considering ANYTHING elective in a public plan.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join