Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12671)	12/24/2009 4:07:30 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If the plans are receiving federal subsidies, then it could be argued federal funds are going to abortion. Money is fungible. Money will always be fungible. But as long people paying premiums on those plans pay more for the included abortion coverage, the abortion isn't being paid for by the subsidy. 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. Then how is the Stupak Amendment an extension of the limitations on federal funding of abortion? Because the plan I describe above won't be available. She will either have to do without abortion coverage altogether if no stand-alone policy is offered or pay more than $30 for it if it is. You are extending the limitation any time you reduce the number of women who have abortion coverage. You may not be doing it directly but that's the net result, which advances the pro-life cause in the same way that putting clinics out of business does or increasing the costs of providing abortions.