Should Insurance Pay For Abortion?

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Totally agree with you... Men should cover at least half. If its half theirs they can pay half. I still think it should be 60/40 since women actually go through the trauma of having an abortion all men do is thrust. But 50/50 is fair.

60/40 sounds like a good split to me, too. It just angers me SO much when pregnancy and abortion are treated like issues unique to women in every respect, as if it is our "burden" alone.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by calstorm
Again I want to point out that I am talking only about cases where the woman willing opened her legs.

And who is going to decide that she willingly opened her legs? How will this be proven?

If a woman willingly has sex fully aware of the consequences, know that the condom could break birth control pills could fail, ect. than it is an elective procedure. By making an informed decision to have sex she agreed to consequences of her actions.

So, if someone willingly goes skiing, fully aware of the consequences, KNOWING that many skiers fall and break their legs, their broken leg shouldn't be covered? If you make the informed decision to go skiing, you agreed to the consequences of your actions...

Pretty silly, huh?

A broken leg is a medical necessity, an abortion is not.

reply to post by calstorm


Everyone's ideas cloud their judgment there is not a single unbiased opinion out there see look my opinion shines through there.

I'm a pro-choicer and yeah that's why I think it should be covered.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Very true, I'm sick of these threads but I keep commenting in a masochistic hope that people see common sense and realize, BIRTH HURTS!!! and its emotionally draining, taxing and stressful. It's ignorant to think otherwise. Accidents happen and its no ones fault, except maybe the condom company, or drug company who messed up on your contraceptive.

[
Yes it takes two to make a baby but as the current laws stand men have no rights or responsibilities until the child is born, hence the terms woman's choice, the male choice to participate in the act that resulted in the pregnancy is not valid.

Oh.
My.
God.

Yes, clearly the rights and choices related to abortion are PURELY up to women! Gosh, how could I be so silly! I mean, it's not like the legislation on abortion was written by a group of MEN, or that insurance policy was written mostly by MEN.

Don't get me wrong, I love men, especially the one I loving call my boyfriend. But to make a statement like you did shows a complete lack of historical context when it comes to women's reproductive rights.

By the way I am a woman and my personal opinions on abortion are irrelevant to this discussion. If I allowed my opinions on abortion or allowed my emotions on the subject to override my logical thinking on the subject you would be getting a completely different answer to the topic at hand.

It is inherently an emotional topic. You can't separate something to innately emotional as sex and pregnancy from the inherent emotional issues.

What people don't seem to realize, though, is that by not allowing women to get this procedure by insurance, you are effectively creating a class dichotomy. Only those with expendable income will be able to pay out of pocket for the procedures, which causes lower income families to either be burdened with additional unwanted children, or creates a higher demand for "seedier" abortion practices.

A broken leg is a medical necessity, an abortion is not.

Not true at all. You can live a perfectly healthy life with an untreated broken leg, assuming it isn't compound. It just heals improperly and makes it a bit harder to move around. On the other hand, being prevented from having an abortion can permanently alter your life, or even cause women to seek other means of aborting the pregnancy, increasing the risk of infection and death.

What about reconstructive surgery, hip replacements, vasectomy and tubal ligation? These are all "elective surgery".

Elective surgeries include:

* Biopsies or exploratory surgery, which is used to diagnose an illness or determine how advanced it is.
* Gynecological, which includes procedures such as hysterectomies (removal of the uterus and/or ovaries).
* Musculoskeletal, to replace deteriorated joints.
* Refractive, to repair vision defects; often referred to as LASIK, which is one form.
* Plastic, including procedures to reconstruct breasts or other body parts affected by illness or injury.
* Cardiovascular, which improves the heart's function.

Source

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Again I want to point out that I am talking only about cases where the woman willing opened her legs.

If a woman willingly has sex fully aware of the consequences, know that the condom could break birth control pills could fail, ect. than it is an elective procedure. By making an informed decision to have sex she agreed to consequences of her actions.

How about the men who willingly had sex with those "women who willing opened their legs" foot half the bill? Why don't we make that a legal requirement? I mean, it's technically a business agreement at that point, wouldn't you say? Why do the men get off free?

I do agree that men should be 50% responsible and that if it decide that the pregnancy is not to be terminated he should also be 50% responsible for the medical costs of the prenatal care.
I just disagree that in an elective setting that abortion should be covered.

Tater you asked for thoughts, here's mine.

High Risk Pregnancy immediate chance of death to mother - covered, counseling also covered. 100%
Rape - covered, counseling also covered. 100%
Incest - covered ,counseling also covered. 100%

Birth control, covered, manadatory educational classes covered. 100%

Consensual act resulting in unwanted pregnancy - NOT covered.

It's available but it is NOT covered.
The COSTS are fixed nationwide, there is no variance in pricing for ANY of the covered services.
The uncovered procedure is the same price as the one provided under insurance.

There are valid reasons for the procedure.
Post consensual coitus birth control in my opinion is not a valid reason,
move the responsibility and accountability IN FRONT of the sex act, and let it be owned by the individual, rather than After the sex act and the responsibilty, costs, and accountability transfered to the insurance group, public, subscribers.

Responsibility HAS TO be an ingredient provided by the individuals, somewhere in this negotiation.
Seems fair enough, as it addresses the needs currently presented on the subject.

Thanks

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What about reconstructive surgery, hip replacements, vasectomy and tubal ligation? These are all "elective surgery".

Elective surgeries include:

* Biopsies or exploratory surgery, which is used to diagnose an illness or determine how advanced it is.
* Gynecological, which includes procedures such as hysterectomies (removal of the uterus and/or ovaries).
* Musculoskeletal, to replace deteriorated joints.
* Refractive, to repair vision defects; often referred to as LASIK, which is one form.
* Plastic, including procedures to reconstruct breasts or other body parts affected by illness or injury.
* Cardiovascular, which improves the heart's function.

Source

Are the things in your list covered by insurance.
There are things on that list that would consider elective and things on there I wouldn't. I would consider a biopsy preventive or diagnostic care, hysterectomies are rarely done with out medical necessity except in the case of a sex change.
The only two on that list that I would consider elective would be reconstructive surgery and then that would be case by case and reproductive sterilization.

reply to post by calstorm


What about some one who has to get botox for due to it hindering their job performance?

Insurance pays for birth control pills. Isn't that not also abortion at an earlier stage? So what's the difference? Some of those same people who are pro-choice also complain about paying for that child through public assistance entitlements.

Originally posted by calstorm
Are the things in your list covered by insurance.

My biopsy was covered. Good thing, too because I had cancer. My tubal ligation was also covered. My sister's hip replacements were covered... Each insurance company is different.

The only reason abortion is not covered by government is RELIGION. And that pisses me off.

Not that someone is religious - - - but that government allows religion to affect its decision.

I am 100% zero religion in government. Religion is a personal choice and should NEVER affect anyone who does not make that choice.

Originally posted by Detour
Insurance pays for birth control pills. Isn't that not also abortion at an earlier stage? So what's the difference? Some of those same people who are pro-choice also complain about paying for that child through public assistance entitlements.

Go figure that most insurances cover Viagra.

it just boggles my mind.

reply to post by Xiamara


I guess you missed my first post. Perhaps you were busy buying diamonique from QVC.
note: Not meant as in insult just a fun reference to your avatar from someone who gets and appreciates it despite our difference of opinion.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Yes. If insurance can cover such things as erectile dysfunction, cosmetic surgery and other unnecessary procedures, then it should cover abortion.

And if the religious folks don't like that, then they should go take a flying leap off of a short cliff and into shallow water.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Abortion became the law of the land as a reproductive and human rights issue, even though it was the feminist movement pushing it. outside of the workplace, title vii and schools etc, there really is no basis for 'feminism' in the law. Abortion rights were predicated on a line of earlier cases involving condoms and sodomy. that being said, i completely agree with the hyde amendment.

abortion is fundamentally different from every other medical procedure. no other medical procedure is defined as the termination of a possible human life. i think that give's congress great leeway in how it regulates federal dollars. there can be a legitimate policy interest in not paying for the possible termination of a life while still recognizing the negative liberty to go out and get an abortion free from restrictions.

if you think that it takes blind faith in a religion to believe that a fetus is a possible human life, then you just haven't thought about the issue hard enough. so there's plenty of legitimate secular reasons to decide against universal funding of these things.

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by calstorm

 

What about some one who has to get botox for due to it hindering their job performance?

Actually I support cosmetic needs for Entertainment employment.

It really Sux Big Time - - - the Youth Dominance in the Entertainment industry.

One reason I love foreign films. People - especially women tend to be "more real" in foreign films. Also the BBC. It is so refreshing to see normal looking people.

I grew up near Hollywood and my daughter works in the industry in production. Its just stupid what some celebrities have to endure to stay current.

reply to post by Annee


I dont know about religion being the sole reason,
I'm not a follower of any religion, but I still have the personal belief that once cell division begins and there is growth, that it is life, it is alive.
It may not have all the traits and attributes at day 1 as it will have at day 9,372 but then nothing that is under development does.
I think it's a personal choice, and that either choice has to be made by the individual, owned by the individual, and respected.
If that sounds like I'm playing on the top of the fence I'm not,
It is simply the way it should be, and the outcomes and consequences should be owned by the individuals as well.
There is no magic everyone feels good consensus on this issue.
There never will be.
It's too volatile.