Should Insurance Pay For Abortion?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Quadrivium
It should be law for a pregnant woman (and her lover) seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound before going through with the procedure.

They should have to watch it no more than 10 min. just so they would be able to see exactly what it is they are contemplating. This I would gladly help pay for.

It should be law that you are forced to watch the procedure of removal of a stomach tumor over and over - - - before you have the surgery.

Whether anyone likes it or not - - - a fetus is a parasite - - - feeding off the host body. That's just a medical fact.

A fetus is the beginning of a human being. When you become pregnant you do not have worms, larva or or a tumor, you have a human being inside of you.
If you choose to have an elective abortion because you do not want to be responsible for your mistake then you should have to watch/hear that "parasite's" heart beat, suck it's thumb, blink, open and close it's hands.
Because it is mostly an elective surgery then it should not be covered by insurance.

If you choose to have an elective abortion because you do not want to be responsible for your mistake then you should have to watch/hear that "parasite's" heart beat, suck it's thumb, blink, open and close it's hands.

You know... I'm going to retract my first post and suggest that once a woman decides to have an abortion, she should automatically have her tubes tied. No more of this 3 strikes and you're out business. One abortion and you've lost your priviledge to ever parent a child. And yes insurance should pay for it. And if you don't have insurance the State should pay for it. But once you do, you're automatically pulled out of the gene pool. Same goes for guys who don't want to pay child support.

Insurrence pay for abortion? It should be free, enough said.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing is free. Not even in Sweden. Your tax dollar is what pretty much pays for everything over there.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


I don't know if this has been posted before, but many private insurance have additional abortion insurance in them just like additional insurance to cover pregnancy, the thing is that under the new mandatory health care this type of insurance option could be taken away even if you are paying for insurance from your own pocket.

Medicaid doesn't cover for abortion in many states and in those that do cover is under specific rules.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


If insurance should pay for abortions then I think insurance companies have a right to raise your premiums. Since you're talking about the Hyde Amendment then the government should have a right to control how and when you have sex.

Quite frankly, the Hyde Amendment is a good thing. Some tax payers don't believe in abortions. So why should they have to flip the bill for some irresponsible people having sex without protection?

reply to post by marg6043


Well I guess people will just have to be more responsible when they have sex. And it's ashame the government has to do it for them because their parents never taught them.

For these insurance companies that seem to be concerned about their bottom lines more than the health of their clients, you'd think they'd all be covering abortions. An abortion is a heck of a lot cheaper than a birth.

Originally posted by Come Clean

Quite frankly, the Hyde Amendment is a good thing. Some tax payers don't believe in abortions. So why should they have to flip the bill for some irresponsible people having sex without protection?

Some tax payers don't believe in medical care at all. Why should they have to flip the bill for people who don't pray to God to heal them?

Originally posted by Annee
If parents are financially unable to care for their children beyond a limited time - - - children are to be removed from the home and placed into mandatory city/resident run all inclusive orphanages.

That eliminates judging single mothers on welfare. Because there is no welfare.

And so society comes full circle.

The single mothers' allowance, as it was originally, was legislated only because people realised it was a lot cheaper to pay the mother a pittance to keep the child than to pay the costs of institutional care.

Do you really want the government to have to pay out even more for welfare?

Originally posted by calstorm
My stance is if the procedure is elective and not medically necessary or the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape than no it should not be.

Calstorm, here you are saying abortion should not be covered if the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape.

Before I tell you what I think of anyone expressing this sentiment, perhaps you would like to clarify your meaning or explain your point of view.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Annee
If parents are financially unable to care for their children beyond a limited time - - - children are to be removed from the home and placed into mandatory city/resident run all inclusive orphanages.

That eliminates judging single mothers on welfare. Because there is no welfare.

And so society comes full circle.

The single mothers' allowance, as it was originally, was legislated only because people realised it was a lot cheaper to pay the mother a pittance to keep the child than to pay the costs of institutional care.

Do you really want the government to have to pay out even more for welfare?

Always about the money. Honestly my thoughts run much deeper then money. This is not the thread to go into the discussion of social change - - - and ways to stop cycling mindsets of poverty and lack of personal responsibility.

I became a single mother after several years of marriage because my husband was jealous of his own children. My first pregnancy was a 4th month spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). My 2nd and 3rd produced daughters. My 4th was an abortion.

At least I have real experience in regards to abortion and making that choice.

YES! Absolutely the government should offer free abortions.

Should insurance be allowed to be used for abortions? Sure, if women don't mind having their insurance premiums being raised to reflect the cost. Not to mention you will still have to pay a deductible.

Add anything you want to insurance. A lot of you seem to believe insurance equals free.

Ok, Honestly.... I just had a sort of "Revelations" about this thread.

My Actual Perspective on the Matter:

1. Abortions should receive NO State or Federal Funding (Taxes)... you pay for that on your Own!

2. What is the point of having Private Insurance Cover "Abortions"?

a. Do you think you're going to be getting so many abortions that it would be cost effective to put that on a monthly payment plan?

b. you don't think that getting "Insurance" to pay for it, automatically makes it "Free" or something, do you?

c. Because Private Insurance is only there to MAKE MONEY.

d. It MAKES money, because the total amount it receives in premiums, is greater than its total expenditure on payments (claims)

e. Insurance is meant to Cover LARGE Medical Bills.... like your HEART needing to be replaced or something.

f. Last I checked... Abortions were only a couple hundred Bucks... and if you don't have *THAT* kind of money... than you can't afford insurance anyways.... so the whole point is moot.


"Should Insurance Cover Abortions"?

I really... just Don't see the Point....


Private Insurance can COVER whatever the [snip] they want.


PUBLIC insurance (Like Medicare) should only cover abortions on a "NEED TO PREFORM" basis.... as in, We will PAY for it, if it is the ONLY way to save her life.

Because *THEN* it would actually qualify as a Legitimate Medical Expense.... as opposed to "The Lazy Girls Condom" or the "Prophylactic of Poor Planning"

But seriously... in all honesty... why would you want PRIVATE MEDICAL insurance company to cover Non-Medically-Necessary procedures?

And NO, since you asked... I don't think my taxes should be paying for people to get and maintain Erections Either.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Annee


I became a single mother after several years of marriage because my husband was jealous of his own children. My first pregnancy was a 4th month spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). My 2nd and 3rd produced daughters. My 4th was an abortion.

At least I have real experience in regards to abortion and making that choice.

YES! Absolutely the government should offer free abortions.

My car broke down and required major repairs that were just out of what I could afford. I have real experience when in regards to making that choice to junk it.

YES! Absolutely the government should offer free car repairs.

My house is in major need of repair either due to my negligence or that of others. I cannot afford to repair it and now it is in disrepair.

YES! Absolutely the government should offer free house fixing.

I was laid off from my job and now I have to choose to either pay my rent or buy food. I have real experience when in regards to making that choice.

YES! Absolutely the government should offer free money ... oh wait.

I think you get my point.

There are many reasons why abortion should be covered.

1. It's much cheaper for the insurance company to cover an abortion than to cover childbirth.

2. It's much cheaper for the insurance company to cover an abortion than to cover hospitalisation for hemmorhage or toxic shock after a backyard abortion.

3. Women who can't afford an abortion are more likely to have late-term abortions, (as it takes them time to save up,) which are much more likely to cause complications than early abortions.

Also, the government should fund abortions for those without healthcare, as abortion is cheaper than welfare.

The economy is seriously getting desperate, and there are likely to be severe cuts to welfare in the next 10 years. Anyone who wants an abortion but cannot afford it should be helped to avoid bringing another unwanted child into this over-populated world.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Annee
If parents are financially unable to care for their children beyond a limited time - - - children are to be removed from the home and placed into mandatory city/resident run all inclusive orphanages.

That eliminates judging single mothers on welfare. Because there is no welfare.

And so society comes full circle.

The single mothers' allowance, as it was originally, was legislated only because people realised it was a lot cheaper to pay the mother a pittance to keep the child than to pay the costs of institutional care.

Do you really want the government to have to pay out even more for welfare?

Always about the money. Honestly my thoughts run much deeper then money.

My apologies, but as institutionalised care has aways been problematic, I can't imagine any other reason you'd want to turn the clock back that far.

This is not the thread to go into the discussion of social change - - - and ways to stop cycling mindsets of poverty and lack of personal responsibility.

*shrug* You brought up the subject of removal of children from the home and placing them into "mandatory city/resident run all inclusive orphanages", so it's fair enough to ask you why you want that done.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Annee
If parents are financially unable to care for their children beyond a limited time - - - children are to be removed from the home and placed into mandatory city/resident run all inclusive orphanages.

That eliminates judging single mothers on welfare. Because there is no welfare.

The single mothers' allowance, as it was originally, was legislated only because people realised it was a lot cheaper to pay the mother a pittance to keep the child than to pay the costs of institutional care.

Do you really want the government to have to pay out even more for welfare?

Always about the money. Honestly my thoughts run much deeper then money.

WHAT?!?!?! You're kidding right? So, you think the psychological damage done to a child leaves no long-term scars when they are suddenly ripped from the safety of a home with loving parent(s) they've known all their life and placed into an orphanage with total strangers and children who have who-knows-what mental issues is better than staying in the care of parents who have done no wrong other than to lose income?

What if an adolescent girl, who is forced into an orphanage by your requirements, misses her home and another adolescent boy in the same situation offers her comfort in his arms . . . in his bed . . . and gets pregnant by him? Now an avoidable situation has just occurred. Does she get an abortion? That's so traumatizing on all levels for a young girl. Does she give birth and place the baby up for adoption? That's so traumatizing on all levels for a young girl. Does she try to raise the child and risk having the baby being ripped from her loving arms only to be placed in that orphanage where this whole situation started . . . because she can't afford to raise that child that was created in the orphanage you built because you didn't want to pay welfare to HER mother.

You want to give women the right to have an abortion covered under her healthcare policy, HOWEVER, you also want to take away her rights to love and raise the child/children if she can't afford them? That makes absolutely NO sense at all!

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nivcharah

Out of EVERYTHING I stated in my post, the only thing you got out of that was an attack on Obama? I don't blame Obama. That healthcare plan was a work in progress before he even announced running for POTUS.

Then why did you feel the need to even bring Obama into this - - - in your first paragraph (I believe).

Of course it is not the only thing I read in your post.

I brought it up because it is the govt healthcare plan / reform, which is not so affectionately referred to as "Obamacare", that you want these abortions to be covered under. Without the healthcare reform, there is absolutely no chance of getting elective abortions covered under private or public health plans.

I see the Straw Man everywhere today.

Here are some truths about this topic that I think have been overlooked.

Here is how I see both views. Those who think that it should not be paid for by insurance, can do 1 or 2 things. Either offer to pay for the procedure out of pocket. Or offer to raise the child. There is no in between with this subject.

The fact that people can come into a forum and judge, and personally I don't care who does it, will not and does not understand or know the view of the MOTHER. Now I use the word mother, because when a woman finds out that she is pregnant, thats usually the first thought. Whether she keeps it or not.

This isn't a medical view or a political view. Its a human.. no a woman view. This isn't like throwing a chicken in the garbage, this is removed from a woman's womb, and is a medical procedure. Its painful, and not just physical, but mental.

This topic is about 2 things when it comes to insurance. Money. And Money. That has nothing to do with how a woman feels, or the pain, or even the life long resentment that most woman feel.

There are many different ways to change this, and complaining is not one of them. We allow for our decisions to be made by others and then complain on how its going. When something exchanges hands, you no longer control it. You don't want your tax dollars to cover it. Then stop paying taxes.

You think that the system can take care of the kids, then volunteer at a group home. If you don't want women on drugs having kids, go volunteer at a drug rehab.

This may not seem like I have the answer, but can you truly say that these things wouldn't work. What if you can save one children from abortion, and also some woman from forever regretting it? High horses to the side, and help.

I am not patronizing or being condescending. I am dead serious!! These things CAN be done. We don't have to let people suffer. If we saw the child's lives as well as the mothers then maybe we can have a better perspective.

Its a human situation, not a money situation. If you can save one life, is it NOT worth it, it could be your child, you niece, your neighbor.

Peace, NRE.