A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (12669)	12/24/2009 3:51:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 42652

You can make a technical case for that. Except that the amendment is to a bill that will likely dump people from private to public plans and that was not an unknown at the time the amendment was negotiated. I don't see it as just a technical case. The principle is (with some exceptions, which aren't changing) no federal government funding of abortion. If the amendment was to a law that said "only the government can pay for health care", than the law is increasing the control, not the amendment to it, and if the amendment was not in place, and if its absence meant that government would fund abortions, then its absence would be a retreat from the policy of no funding, not maintaining neutrality. The payment for any individual abortion would come from the extra premiums paid by all covered women If the plans are receiving federal subsidies, then it could be argued federal funds are going to abortion. Money is fungible. If you segregate the plans, and only plans receiving no subsidy can pay for the abortion, than you don't have that problem. That's not much different from segregating the plans. Then how is the Stupak Amendment an extension of the limitations on federal funding of abortion?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next