I think why it is so different is because it is still a emotive issue in US, which probably links into the fact US is undeniably very religious for a western country.
Abortion has been a dead issue in many countries. Accept it and try to reduce it by not criminalizing it.
It's not. That you think a certain aspect is a shortcoming is of no surprise, though. Chances are that you are in favor of some political agenda that i find abhorrent, but i wouldn't call it a "shortcoming". It's just something that you favor that i disagree with. I support abortions being paid for with tax dollars, and you can disagree with me, but just because i have that opinion that you don't agree with doesn't make it a shortcoming.
Newsflash to Ethereal: Your disagreement with an opinion is not a "shortcoming" of that opinion.
Lots of people on this thread have merely shared their opinion and not provided logic.
You certainly haven't provided any logic that i'm aware of. Hell, you act like the fact that you disagree with me is a "shortcoming". That's faulty logic if i've ever heard it. Perhaps you should take a page from my book and not act like you're presenting logic when you're just presenting your biased opinion.
Current taxation does this every day. It's a fact of life.
Um, sure. Look, this board is allowing us both to post. Let's not pretend that somehow what people should and shouldn't say, according to your opinion is somehow relevant.
It depends on the wording of the law.
I imagine that i'd be vocal in some way just like you'd be vocal in some way on abortion paid for with tax dollars.
I think you should have the right to be vocal about abortion paid for with tax dollars and that i should have the right to be vocal about whatever i please. That's what make this country so great. What about this process do you not like?
Well you were the one acting like your opinion was some almighty pronouncement or something. I never did. If you want to take opinions so seriously than that's your business. I was just cluing you in to the reality that i don't.
Why?
UHC paying for abortions means that all abortion clinics become subject to government inspection, which means we can make sure that procedures are being performed safely and humanely. At private clinics things can happen more behind closed doors.
I think it is too much for the social realm of U.S. society. It needs to develop more and maybe in the future the matter can be examined better.
I don't really care, but when pro-lifers start talking about pro-choicers being pro-abortion, then i feel the need to point out that pro-lifers are mostly anti-choicers (when it comes to women).
That's a great point Ikari... plastic surgery is usually covered in instances of accidents, and you usually have to apply for it specially to the government. For example, burn victims with severe burns, or children who have been in car accidents, can sometimes be eligible. I'm not sure of the statistics though.
In any case... abortion is covered under UHC as part of most nations' birth control regimes. It's also the reason why birth control pills tend to be cheaper in Western nations, since they receive some subsidy from the government.
But if the requirement for being covered by UHC is "a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for", why would you reject cosmetic surgery, elected cosmetic surgery. The likes meant only to make you look like a horrible skeleton with skin stretched tightly across the skull? It is a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for.
I would say I could accept abortion in cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Actual medical need, like those being burned or in accidents and such for cosmetic surgery. However, elective abortion is just that, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Necessity rules.
If i wanted bigger boobs just because, no way would i get it. I'd be at the back of the list and those infront of me would be burnt victims etc.
If they had no one that needed such surgery, they'd consider it.
K. But I'd say no way no how. If you want fake boobies, I say pay for them yourself.
A better term for pro-life is anti-choice. I tend to use that one much more.
And pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice but I don't like abortion. I consider it a last resort and a messy one.
Illegals will get free healthcare.
But if the requirement for being covered by UHC is "a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for", why would you reject cosmetic surgery, elected cosmetic surgery. The likes meant only to make you look like a horrible skeleton with skin stretched tightly across the skull? It is a medical procedure that requires staff and equipment to be paid for.
I would say I could accept abortion in cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Actual medical need, like those being burned or in accidents and such for cosmetic surgery. However, elective abortion is just that, and I shouldn't have to pay for it.
I wouldn't get it anyway.
Not unless there is no one else in the country or area who needs it
Also... abortion, in paper, is not as expensive as most other routine medical procedures that UHC would cover. Most abortions can be done for less than $1000 as an outpatient procedure. Compare that to any number of other procedures in the tens of thousands of dollars.
While I understand that, I don't think there should be the possibility of tax payers paying for something like that.
It's not a money issue. If anything, it's even further commentary on how sick the process is. Fake boobs seem to be worth more than human life in our current world. The end result is that abortion has horrible consequences, the destruction of innocent human life. And because of that I think we should caution ourselves on what we'd allow the public to fund in these cases.
Okay, even if $1 were being contributed by gov., it wouldn't matter because for you its an ethical concern.
So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?
I'm not trying to paint you as a hypocrite... I'm just saying. The group paying for the individual has been the case for a long time in the work sector. Granted, it's not the public sector, but still.
As I said before, I think more than likely what will happen with U.S. style UHC is that coverage for abortion will depend on which administration is in power. The Republicans will strike it from the bill while the Democrats will restore it. It is the same with the rest of the birth control policy in general.
I still do not see it as a reason to not have UHC though.
Okay, even if $1 were being contributed by gov., it wouldn't matter because for you its an ethical concern.
So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?
I'm not trying to paint you as a hypocrite... I'm just saying. The group paying for the individual has been the case for a long time in the work sector. Granted, it's not the public sector, but still.
As I said before, I think more than likely what will happen with U.S. style UHC is that coverage for abortion will depend on which administration is in power. The Republicans will strike it from the bill while the Democrats will restore it. It is the same with the rest of the birth control policy in general.
I still do not see it as a reason to not have UHC though.
You CHOOSE to participate in this insurance.So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?
I can't do anything with private companies, I don't have a say as it's their company. I do have a say in what the government does and funds since it's my government and my money.
Your country just isn't ready. There are too many debates happening and UHC intersects a lot of them. You can't have UHC until the chatter dies down.
I've found that "its just common sense" is code for "I cannot really come up with a good argument to support the idea".With UHC, you don't really. All countries with a progressive birth control policy that have UHC cover abortion for their people. It's just common sense.
Okay, even if $1 were being contributed by gov., it wouldn't matter because for you its an ethical concern.
So how do you explain private insurance companies who pay for abortion as part of people's work plans? Group insurance involves multiple payers. If you work for a company whose group insurance plan covers abortion, then you are, by default, supporting abortion financially. Have you quit your job over it?
I'm not trying to paint you as a hypocrite... I'm just saying. The group paying for the individual has been the case for a long time in the work sector. Granted, it's not the public sector, but still.
So US will never have UHC?
It won't ever stop having such debates, there is no consensus amongst politicans let alone the people
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?