Obamacare Subsidizes Abortions for Women Making $90,000

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Obamacare Subsidizes Abortions for Women Making $90,000


How rich do you have to be in Barack Obama's America to pay the whole tab for your own abortion? What about a divorced 38-year-old public school principal who has three children and earns $90,000 per year? Would she need to personally pay the full fair to have a doctor kill her fourth child while that child was still in her womb?


townhall.com...

Way to go!

Isn't this awesome?

I mean really people making up to $90,000 a year get government subsidized healthcare..

Then of course i really know how tough it is to walk in to Walmart or Target and pay $10 bucks for those must have birth control pills.

Birth control Pills,abortions,every other test there is, then of course that person making 90k a year doesn't have private healthcare?

A job paying $90,000 a year DOESN'T HAVE HEALTHCARE? ????

What an awesome win for the "Jula's" of this country and the current administration all the while they scream at the top of their voices make the rich pay their fair share!

edit on 13-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I don't think you understood the article.

Nowhere does it say the woman who makes 90k is getting a federally funded abortion. The article is claiming that contributers to her insurance company are being forced to pay for the abortion because everyone in the program is collectively paying for the healthcare of their fellow contributors. The woman has private healthcare but because the government provides a credit to people who make < 4x the poverty level, and those people might be enrolled in the same healthcare plan, the taxpayer is effectively helping her to pay for her abortion via PRIVATE HEALTHCARE COVERAGE. At least, that is the claim.

To plainly restate it, Obamacare doesn't require that employer-provided health plans that are eligible for a federal tax credit disclose that they are plans that cover abortion. Because a portion of each of the insured's payments go toward paying doctors who perform abortions, they are claiming that people are being forced to pay for abortion. So they are basically claiming that because people who get a federal tax credit if they make less than four times the poverty level, the government is effectively subsidizing abortion. It's a stretch, no matter how you look at it.

Of course I expect most people who read this trash won't fully understand it and instead will just make their own assumptions based on the highly exaggerated headline.

I don't believe in war, does that mean I shouldn't have to pay taxes to a country that goes to war with EVERYBODY? Why is your morality more important than mine?


ETA:

I wonder if the people starring and flagging you are taking the time to realize that your assumption and claim are incorrect, and a misunderstanding of the article.. Or if they just share the same agenda and overlook your mistake. Interesting.
edit on 13-11-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Just more of the church whining about birth control. I love the examples though.


What about a divorced 38-year-old public school principal who has three children and earns $90,000 per year?



Here's one possibility: A married mother of five working as a teacher at a Catholic school, earning a salary of $35,000 per year, and doing her best to teach her pupils and her own children that God gives every human being an inalienable right to life.


The person that wrote this article is an idiot.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Nope no misunderstanding at all here


"These plans, including those which cover abortions without any limits, will be eligible for federal tax credit subsidies when the enrollee earns less than four times the federal poverty level," the USCCB explained. "In all previous federal programs, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, such tax subsidies for overall plans that include elective abortions were forbidden by law."



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Under Obamacare, the federal government will force taxpayers to help her buy insurance that pays for abortions


I think your title is misleading at best. Basically the insurance she buys will cover abortions.

Splitting hairs here. It’s a non-issue to me. It will be covered under all womens insurance.

Insurance covers abortion and contraceptives that is not new news.


Can you tell me how much extra this will cost in premiums. 1$ or 100$? If it is overtly expensive it may be of intrest.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Nope no misunderstanding at all here


"These plans, including those which cover abortions without any limits, will be eligible for federal tax credit subsidies when the enrollee earns less than four times the federal poverty level," the USCCB explained. "In all previous federal programs, including the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, such tax subsidies for overall plans that include elective abortions were forbidden by law."


Yes, you did misunderstand. You made the assumption in your OP that the woman was getting a federal tax credit for her healthcare. She is not, she makes more than four times the poverty level.

What the article claims is that because people who DO NOT make four times the poverty level DO get a tax credit, and because they contribute to the same healthcare plan that she does, their premiums (some of which allegedly are paid for by the federal government) are therefor helping to pay for this woman's abortion.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


What is abortion then?

Those subsidies cover procedures and testing.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 





I think your title is misleading at best. Basically the insurance she buys will cover abortions.


Direct quotation from the link


The USCCB analysis explained: "The plans that include elective abortions must charge each enrollee an additional payment, to be used solely for elective abortions for anyone in the plan. The Act explicitly requires that the premiums paid on behalf of every man, woman and child in the plan must have this surcharge."




But the Obamacare regulation does not allow the insurers to reveal the amount of this abortion surcharge


No one sees any problems with this?

That is just sad.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


What is abortion then?

Those subsidies cover procedures and testing.


They aren't really subsidies, they are tax credits for healthcare to people who cannot afford it. Claiming that taxpayers are paying for abortions because it is one of millions of procedures covered is just retarded.

When we bomb schools and churches in the Middle East and kill pregnant women, are we not all doing exactly the same thing that you are claiming in your OP? We are all paying to build that bomb, train that crew, buy that fuel.. So when we kill an unborn baby in an aerial attack are we not all already participating in the murder of innocents? Why are you ok with one and not the other? You can't make all these abstract connections and have a valid point if you choose to ignore a similar situation that you just so happen to agree with..

Just because you are a member of a healthcare plan that offers abortion doesn't mean you need to get abortions and it doesn't mean you are contributing to abortions either.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I asked for a dollar amount otherwise it could cost a penny and that is much cheaper than raising unwanted children so it is an issue about the cost to our nation to me. I am prochoice so the word abortion does not shock or offend me.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 





They aren't really subsidies, they are tax credits for healthcare to people who cannot afford it. Claiming that taxpayers are paying for abortions because it is one of millions of procedures covered is just retarded.


Yes they are


The Affordable Care Act sets up new marketplaces where people who don’t get insurance through an employer can buy coverage. And it provides subsidies to families with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.



Critics say the subsidies are too generous; 400 percent of the poverty level is more than $90,000 per year. And because the subsidies don’t begin to flow until 2014, they represent a giant pot of money that’s in the budget but wouldn’t have to come out of anyone’s pocket.


Giving someone a service that they can not pay for and then have to take from someone else is a subsidy.

thehill.com...



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Insurance companies will be required to provide women's gynecological healthcare now without huge co-pays. This includes many things, like breast cancer checks, pap smears, std checks, everything else.......

The woman pays for the PRIVATE insurance....





edit on 13-11-2012 by Trustfund because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by neo96
 


I asked for a dollar amount otherwise it could cost a penny and that is much cheaper than raising unwanted children so it is an issue about the cost to our nation to me. I am prochoice so the word abortion does not shock or offend me.


So it's just cheaper to kill unwanted children great sense of "morality there".



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustfund


Insurance companies will be required to provide women's gynecological healthcare now without huge co-pays. This includes many things, like breast cancer checks, pap smears, std checks, everything else.......

The woman pays for the PRIVATE insurance....


That someone else is going to have to pay for After All nothing is free because others who do not make 90k a year.
edit on 13-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Um, yeah the woman pays for it. It is called private health insurance.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Other members have already pointed out the real context of the article, so I won't bother.

I will say is that it is none of our business what someone else does at the doctors office...whether it is subsidized by government funds or not!

What if I disagreed with vasectomies, because my religion says it's wrong? Does that mean I should stop others from having that healthcare option?

Let me say it again...IT"S NONE OF OUR DAMNED BUSINESS!



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 





They aren't really subsidies, they are tax credits for healthcare to people who cannot afford it. Claiming that taxpayers are paying for abortions because it is one of millions of procedures covered is just retarded.


Yes they are


The Affordable Care Act sets up new marketplaces where people who don’t get insurance through an employer can buy coverage. And it provides subsidies to families with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.



Critics say the subsidies are too generous; 400 percent of the poverty level is more than $90,000 per year. And because the subsidies don’t begin to flow until 2014, they represent a giant pot of money that’s in the budget but wouldn’t have to come out of anyone’s pocket.


Giving someone a service that they can not pay for and then have to take from someone else is a subsidy.

thehill.com...


You don't understand the subsidies either, but they are relying on that..


Premium Subsidies Households with incomes below 400 percent and above 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) who are enrolled in insurance plans offered through the exchanges are eligible for premium assistance financed by the federal government (Medicaid will cover families with incomes below 133 percent of FPL). In 2010, the FPL is $22,050 for family of four. The new law establishes a sliding scale of assistance based on limitations on required family contributions to the cost of coverage. For instance, at 150 percent of FPL in 2014, ObamaCare limits the amount that such households must contribute toward their health insurance premium to 4 percent of their annual income. At 400 percent of the FPL, households must contribute 9.5 percent of their income toward insurance premiums. Whatever portion of the total health insurance premium for their coverage is not paid by these households is covered by the new federal premium assistance program.


So this woman making 90k a year will only get a subsidy if her healthcare premiums cost more than 9.5% of her annual income.

In the hypothetical situation you provided, we don't know what the woman spends on healthcare or how much her employer contributes so we cannot make the determination that she would be receiving any federal "subsidy" for her PRIVATE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE.

But again, the people who write this vitriolic hate-speech are counting on their readers having a flimsy understanding of what Obamacare actually does.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Additionally, starting in 2014, there will be tax credits to help middle-class Americans buy coverage. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision this month on whether to uphold the law completely or strike down parts or all of it.


Middle Class tax credits thought the law was suppose to hellp those who could not get insurance not pay for those who already do.

Not good enough


WASHINGTON — Nearly 6 million Americans – significantly more than first estimated_ will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

Middle class don't have insurance? Aren't those mostly union jobs? all union jobs have insurance.

Then


n March, the CBO estimated that 27 million people would still be uninsured in 2022. It now finds that 30 million will be uninsured 10 years from now. The latest analysis takes into account the Supreme Court's June ruling that states do not have to expand their Medicaid programs, which provide health care coverage for low-income people


finance.yahoo.com...

But of course there were already 50 millon on medicare,medicaid add millions more to programs that can not already be paid for.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
So is this thread going to be moved to the hoax bin?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Other members have already pointed out the real context of the article, so I won't bother.

I will say is that it is none of our business what someone else does at the doctors office...whether it is subsidized by government funds or not!

What if I disagreed with vasectomies, because my religion says it's wrong? Does that mean I should stop others from having that healthcare option?

Let me say it again...IT"S NONE OF OUR DAMNED BUSINESS!



The current 16 trillion dollar deficIt and what it will be in 2016 is everyones business in this country.

When there are those who keep crying tax the rich to pay for the stupidity of paying for people who can take care of themselves ItS VERY MUCH EVERYONES BUSINESS


edit on 13-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join