SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (12674)12/24/2009 4:43:54 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
Say that a plan costs $4k per year and the individual's share of that is $1000. An identical plan with abortion coverage costs $4030 per year. If the individual pays $1030 for her share, then public money isn't paying for abortions. The $3000 in public money is irrelevant.

If its that cut and dried, you could just pay $30 a year for an abortion coverage policy, or maybe $60 assuming extra overhead, there would be no need for federal entanglement at any level. I suspect it isn't so simple, in which case the "abortion insurance" option might not be available, but than if it isn't the "federal government isn't paying for it" idea is questionable.

or pay more than $30 for it if it is

Many other people would also have to pay more. I see no reason to make those who might want abortion coverage some special exemption to this possibility.

You are extending the limitation any time you reduce the number of women who have abortion coverage.

Nonsense. And that's not just an exclamation of thoughtless emotion disagreement, I seriously mean it. I thought about it again, and I still mean it. The principle in question is (essentially) no federal funding for abortion. If not a single woman could get the coverage because the state is taking over the insurance industry (not literally nationalizing it but making it a government controlled utility), but the principle embodied in law is the same, than there would be no extension by the amendment.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News