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 (12687)12/24/2009 5:12:28 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
I already acknowledged the technicality.

Its not a technicality, its an issue of principle. Its the central issue of principle for a significant faction in the wider health care reform debate.

I'm focusing on the net result

(Leaving aside the issue of whether its actually a negative result in this case.) All sorts of negative net results happen when the government tries to take control over a large area of the economy. Why should abortion be different than say new treatments for heart disease? And even if it should be different I'd point to the government take over as the source of the perceived problem.

This amendment has the effect of further reducing availability beyond the status quo.

Reducing availability isn't extending the scope of the Hyde Amendment (the original point behind this discussion). Even if it is "a win for the pro-life movement" (which I find questionable) its not pushing the Hyde Amendment or its principles further.

Also its not so clear it would reduce availability to any great extent. If no government subsidized insurance plan that covers abortion exists, plans that cover it (either seperately or as part of insurance generally) probably will, and if they don't well insurance for abortions isn't the same thing as abortions, you can have either one without having the other. Your "or pay more than $30 for it" doesn't cut it as reduced availability. Even for the very poor (for whom $30 or perhaps several times more for insurance, or the cost of paying for an abortion without insurance might theoretically be a severe financial burden), their are organizations that subsidize abortions.
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