New Rasmussen Pole-

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

The bill does not exclude payment for abortions, and the sponsors specifically defeated amendments that would have prohibited it

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

Johnny, you just don't get it.

As we've learned from the members of this site, the fundamental problem with the health care proposal is that it's an unnecessary Government intrusion into our lives.

That is precisely why it's necessary for the Government to restrict your choices versus an already regulated private insurance plan on this issue. Because Nanci Pelosi won't stop until every fetus is dead.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

So you think any legal medical procedure should be covered by health insurance? If it's an elective procedure it shouldn't be covered. In the cases where abortion is covered now (rape, incest), it should still be covered under any plan. If it's just because people were being stupid and careless, they can pay for it out of their pockets.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

aren't medical procedures suppose to improve your health?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Other than the religious implications, I never understood why the right was so anti-abortion.

I'm pro-choice, but if that choice is some crackhead not having her fourth drain on society, welfare etc.. wouldn't you be all for it. Call it societal preventative maintenance for all I care...

*Note, I am not an advocate of using abortion as birth control, but absolutely believe in leaving the choice on the table.

*Note 2: I am not just singling out crack, if you are a heroin or meth-head, the same can apply

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

So you think any legal medical procedure should be covered by health insurance? If it's an elective procedure it shouldn't be covered. In the cases where abortion is covered now (rape, incest), it should still be covered under any plan. If it's just because people were being stupid and careless, they can pay for it out of their pockets.

It was moreso an extension of my previous comment. Probably should have said "Exactly why should any legal medical procedure *that's covered by other providers* be excluded".

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It was moreso an extension of my previous comment. Probably should have said "Exactly why should any legal medical procedure *that's covered by other providers* be excluded".

I think more to the point is that by specifically excluding some procedures, you might create future conflicts with existing laws.

There is some (very limited mind you) allowed Federal funding of abortion in cases of rape and when the mother's life is in danger.

It doesn't make any sense to insert blind restrictions into early provisions of the bill, unless it's just to rile the base.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Other than the religious implications, I never understood why the right was so anti-abortion.

The most basic reason for being anti-abortion is the belief that it is murder. Obviously, if you don't believe that a fetus is yet a human being you will not see aborting it as murder, rather, simply a removal of a temporary appendage belonging to the "mother", at her request, of course.

But those who oppose abortion do see the fetus as an innocent human being, and killing an innocent human being other than for self defense, or war, would be murder. You may disagree, but that point of view should not be difficult to understand.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

Ok,, what about "adda#^&#^&#^&#^&tome's" or "chopa#^&#^&#^&#^&offame's"? should legal sex change operations be covered? Where does it end?

In the civilian run systems, you choose the one that provides what you decide you want...

with a government run system, they and only they would decide what is and isnt covered... at least with our substandard plans we have now, we have choices to alter or get plans we like.

Give people "tax free" accounts similar to IRA's that can only be used "tax free" to cover medical accounts for routine care and only provide a catastrophic plan for everyone. Routine stuff should be paid for or covered by your health savings accounts,,,

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Ok,, what about "adda#^&#^&#^&#^&tome's" or "chopa#^&#^&#^&#^&offame's"? should legal sex change operations be covered? Where does it end?

You obviously didn't read the entire thread.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You obviously didn't read the entire thread.

that's correct CB...Mainstream Johnny will decide the cut off or eligibility point for ...wait ...addicts and addadictome's are two different things right?...well, desn't matter JD will decide who is eligible/not eligible based on habits...educated/not educated enough...ignorant/ not ignorant....on crack, heroine, meth/ not on crack, heroine, meth...with appendage/ without appendage, but only once a year

we'll make him the Voting Eligibility/Medical Rationing Czar

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The most basic reason for being anti-abortion is the belief that it is murder. Obviously, if you don't believe that a fetus is yet a human being you will not see aborting it as murder, rather, simply a removal of a temporary appendage belonging to the "mother", at her request, of course.

But those who oppose abortion do see the fetus as an innocent human being, and killing an innocent human being other than for self defense, or war, would be murder. You may disagree, but that point of view should not be difficult to understand.

That's my take on it too.
I could never figure out why abortion was legal but killing a fetus in a womb during an assault was murder. I guess it's Ok if you have permission. To bad they can't ask the one being killed.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's correct CB...Mainstream Johnny will decide the cut off or eligibility point for ...wait ...addicts and addadictome's are two different things right?...well, desn't matter JD will decide who is eligible/not eligible based on habits...educated/not educated enough...ignorant/ not ignorant....on crack, heroine, meth/ not on crack, heroine, meth...with appendage/ without appendage, but only once a year

we'll make him the Voting Eligibility/Medical Rationing Czar

Sounds perfectly good to me.

6 years working city streets as an EMT in Hartford and Boston give you a pretty good perspective on how meth addicts, 22 year olds pregnant with their 5th kid and alcoholics will contribute to society.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Sounds perfectly good to me.

6 years working city streets as an EMT in Hartford and Boston give you a pretty good perspective on how meth addicts, 22 year olds pregnant with their 5th kid and alcoholics will contribute to society.

But Johnny, if those people aren't allowed to vote, your candidates won't get elected. It must be hard being a conservative liberal.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

But Johnny, if those people aren't allowed to vote, your candidates won't get elected. It must be hard being a conservative liberal.

It sucks.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It sucks.

LOL.