August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Intelligent/rational supporters of Obama's health plan
Stemming from this E08 post:
http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/3763352.aspx?
Do you support having a national government-run/supported health plan that covers elective abortion? ?Or requiring private insurers to cover elective abortion?
That strikes me as a tremendously radical concept (given that about half our population has a religious/moral opposition to abortion), and I'm pro-choice to the core. ??
It also brings up the bigger point of what role government has in deciding these things? ?Assuming you support elective abortion, what about elective plastic surgery? ?Sex reassignment? ?Lap-bands? ?Lipo? ?
Curious what your take is...
7/21/2007 
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
Re: Intelligent/rational supporters of Obama's health plan
I don't think abortion should be covered by insurance unless it's a life/health of the mother situation or if the fetus has a condition that makes it incompatible with life or other condition women have late-term abortions for. I don't have any real, thought-out reason for it, though.
I'm sort of conflicted, though, because like majorwife has said many times, I think abortion should be readily available with clinics on every corner, and cheap. I think it could be potentially cheaper for insurance companies to cover abortions than to cover the prenatal care and labor & delivery, and subsequent well baby checkups, though. So possibly from a cost-benefit standpoint, it might make sense.
Other "elective" procedures, I'm also conflicted. For example, an ex-bf of mine's mother had gastric bypass when she was like 50 lbs overweight... in fact, she had to gain at least 15 lbs before the doctor would consider it, so she actively tried to gain weight so she could have the surgery. But, I know she's an extreme, and I think that gastric bypass is a great option for certain people and the idea that it would be only available to those who can put the costs up front bothers me.
I can understand the objection to using federal funds for or requiring employers pay for abortion if it's against your moral beliefs. In general, I think preventative care should be covered, but not elective care. Elective care should cost extra. We're talking about basic coverage here, not premium.
On the other hand, those who need elective abortion the most are not going to be able to afford it, or the insurance that would cover it, on their own. This sets it apart from something like plastic surgery or gastric bypass.
In a way, it's almost like preventative care - it saves taxpayers the cost of an unwanted child born to a financially (and otherwise) unprepared parent. Both directly, in healthcare costs, and indirectly if the parent receives some other type of help.
I understand that people who believe it's murder would object to this morally - they'd rather burden the system financially (although in general, they also seem to be on the first lines against entitlement programs and raising taxes).
However, I also think we should be governing based on the rights of citizens - not their morals - and fetuses do not have rights under the constitution. I'm morally opposed to lots of things my tax dollars are funding - the Iraq war for example. If I were in the military, I could file for consciencious objection, but I'm not. Taxpayers do not have the right not to pay for gov't spending they find morally objectionable, and I think it's a dangerous precendent to set.
That said, it's a political land mine.
To be clear, I'm talking about this part of Obama's plan. As I understand it, there would be some public funds going to some people's health care:
The Obama-Biden plan will create a
National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are
uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to
enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be
AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL
provided for people and families who need it.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
In order for pro-life taxpayers to have a choice not to fund abortions, it is necessary to remove the choice of abortion for those who cannot afford it. We can't have both choices. Since I don't believe the constitution gives citizens the right to dictate what they will and will not pay for (beyond support of their representatives), I fall on the choice of the women here.
I think this is an interesting question, but the post title is a bit misleading, as Obama's plan is not to have natl govt run healthcare. I can't believe I would cite to ElizabethD's response, but she did correctly note this point.
To give an anecdotal response re: cosmetic procedures like lipo under an actual national health care system, my aunt did manage to get breast implants under the British NHS. Apparently she told her doctor her marriage was in trouble due to her flat chestedness. (She got divorced anyway, so I don't think her bust size was the major problem!) That is the only cosmetic surgery I know of anyone receiving, and I have lots of relatives and family friends in the UK.
I would be opposed to any federally funded cosmetic procedures, but any medically necessary procedures including gastric bypass I would approve. Sex changes for transgendered people is a tricky one. I'd have to think about it.
As for funding abortions, that's also something I would have to reflect on, but my inclination is to say, yes, they should be funded under the assumption that at least some private insurance plans cover abortions and our premiums collectively cover those costs, whether the policyholder is pro-choice or not. Given that many individuals have a single choice of health care plan under their employers, they're probably in the same boat already. That's assuming I'm right re: insurance plans covering abortions, and I'd be the first to admit I've been wrong before and could be wrong now!
I think this is an interesting question, but the post title is a bit misleading, as Obama's plan is not to have natl govt run healthcare. I can't believe I would cite to ElizabethD's response, but she did correctly note this point.
To give an anecdotal response re: cosmetic procedures like lipo under an actual national health care system, my aunt did manage to get breast implants under the British NHS. Apparently she told her doctor her marriage was in trouble due to her flat chestedness. (She got divorced anyway, so I don't think her bust size was the major problem!) That is the only cosmetic surgery I know of anyone receiving, and I have lots of relatives and family friends in the UK.
I would be opposed to any federally funded cosmetic procedures, but any medically necessary procedures including gastic bypass I would approve. Sex changes for transgendered people is a tricky one. I'd have to think about it.
As for funding abortions, that's also something I would have to reflect on, but my inclination is to say, yes, they should be funded under the assumption that at least some private insurance plans cover abortions and our premiums collectively cover those costs, whether the policyholder is pro-choice or not. Given that many individuals have a single choice of health care plan under their employers, pro-lifers are probably in the same boat already. That's assuming I'm right re: insurance plans covering abortions, and I'd be the first to admit I've been wrong before!
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
ITA, morals are irrelevant. My tax dollars also go towards a war that I find morally objectionable.?
If you're arguing against the concept based on its being elective, I would add maternity care to your list. Should it not be covered since procreating is elective in most cases?
I don't think employers would have to pay in. If that was the case, why would it be costing the federal gov't anything? EDIT: I know the plan cites small businesses, but I was thinking that meant businesses could buy the plan for their employees, and this is different than an individual who is not eligible for employer coverage purchasing the plan.
If that is the case, then it really never will pass.
Also, as far as abortion, insurance often covers IVF, which discards fertilized embryos. I also think that making abortions easier to get will result in them occuring earlier in the pregnancy, which I am more comfortable with. The answer to me is prevention, prevention, prevention. All the debate in the world about paying for abortions is pointless if there are no unwanted pregnancies. Both sides have this goal in common, so let's put our effort there.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
As I understand it, he wants people to be able to buy health insurance similar to that of federal employees. Federal employees' health insurance is not a "national health care plan." Federal employees have group plans through Aetna, Blue Cross, etc., just like anybody else. Their risk pool is other federal employees. So basically he wants to be able to create one giant risk pool and allow people to join that risk pool and purchase insurance from private insurance companies designed for that risk pool. It's not "national health care" in the sense of the UK's NHS. Some tax funds would, I presume, have to go to fund this.
As far as abortions go...I don't believe that any current insurance regulations, federal or state, require any private insurance company to cover abortions. I can't imagine this would change under Obama's health plan. As for whether an insurance company participating in his risk pooling plan wants to cover abortions, I think they should be permitted to.
It wouldn't be a national plan but an "exchange" including public and private health plans. I copied that segment of the plan from the website but it pasted strangely. Here's the link:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
ETA: Sorry for duplicate post above. Stupid nest won't let me delete.
(2) NEW AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTIONS. The Obama-Biden plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals purchase new affordable health care options if they are uninsured or want new health insurance. Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE COVERAGE OPTIONS FOR ALL provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, transparent.That's the plan I'm referring to with this post. Also the concept of whether a plan would have to cover abortion, lipo, etc. to be "an approved private plan" and who would/should make those decisions.
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
Okay, that's covered in the part of the article I didn't c&p. It's in the link, though. The public plan, if used, would be similar to the health coverage given to federal employees, like _Fenton said.
Does insurance cover elected abortions now? I have no idea if mine does.
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
I actually think mine might...
I'm pretty at least one of the plans I was looking at covered it in at least a few sets of circumstances.
My old insurance didn't. Also didn't cover most BCPs, and only the generics of the 2 brands it did cover (unless "medically necessary"). It did cover a variety of ED treatments, though.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
Personally, I don't have a problem with a government program paying for abortions in the case of a severly deformed fetus?(although I think many pro-life supporters might disagree with me)?or obviously an ectopic pregnancy. Conditions where a child might not live long are tougher. ?I am more specifically interested in fully elective abortions where none of these are the case.
I guess my general point is that its nearly impossible or at least highly problematic to draw these kinds of lines, and scary that we are opening ourselves up to the possibility that it would be the government's responsibility to do so.?
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
Another interesting tangent...
Lets assume this hypothetical government program has co-pays of some kind... ?Should the copay for abortion be higher than the copay for birth control in order to discourage the use of abortion as birth control? ?So lets say hormonal birth control is $10/month, should the abortion copay be $130 to discourage the use of abortion as birth control? ?And if yes, doesn't that cut the option of abortion off from the exact people who need it the most?
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
First, ditto the pp's who said that Obama's "public plan" is really just opening up the plan that federal employees have to everyone.
To continue:
Do you support having a national government-run/supported health plan that covers elective abortion? Or requiring private insurers to cover elective abortion? Yes for both. Primarily because I believe that access to abortion is an integral part of guaranteeing women's reproductive freedom, and to quote the CRR, I believe that, "reproductive freedom lies at the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination and equality embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
I'd also like for you to define what you mean by "elective."
Assuming you support elective abortion, what about elective plastic surgery? No.
Sex reassignment? Yes.
Lap-bands? Yes.
Lipo? No, unless done for medical reasons.
That's not really a good analogy, though. Birth control is covered by whatever the plan's prescription coverage is. Abortion isn't a prescription drug. I think you'd have to compare it to the copays/deductibles for other outpatient surgeries.
If I am speaking strictly about what I would want, I would say keep the abortion copay low, which makes it easier for the woman to get it sooner. An abortion at 8 weeks is much different than one at 20 weeks, in my mind. I would also like to see an option for full tubal ligation coverage, but we all know where that conversation went last time. I just feel like if a woman doesn't want anymore kids and I don't want her to have an unwanted pregnancy, isn't giving it to her a win-win? I think some people have hang-ups about procreation that I don't share, hence my position.
If you feel that low co-pays encourage abortion and want them to be higher to discourage it, I would make BCP and the morning after pill virtually free.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
I just read the link to Obama's plan in a pp.
My previous understanding was the premiums would be subsidized for those low income levels. Now it more specifically says these subsidies will be tax credits?
I still wonder about what qualifies as low income. It also sounds good that premiums will decrease on average $2500 but I can't help wonder if we know that for sure. How about the middle class who are struggling? Not quite low income so does this really help them?
All this talk about cutting costs again sounds good but call me cynical I don't think it will happen or at least not on a scale that will make this affordable.
Forcing businesss to do anything isn't always a good idea. If they see their costs going up whether it be in paying for all or part of the premiums or paying into some payroll tax they are going to find a way to cut and more than likely it may be jobs.
For the record I don't like McCain's plan either.
Tackling healthcare is an issue but it makes me nervous when the government wants to commit to this without having a full grasp on the costs. Once we start this process there will be no taking away from the citizens as we have seen with many such programs.
And to answer the question about what should be covered. Well when government starts to pay I can't help but wonder what they will dictate in trying to keep Americans healthy. Should we ban alcohol or cigarettes or fatty foods or sugary foods etc?
Except those "lines" are already being drawn by insurance companies, subject to regulations, that provide insurance to federal employees. Why would opening the risk pool to non-federal employees change that?
I understand the fear of the government getting more involved in health care, but for the 40+ million uninsured and the millions more underinsured, I would think the opportunity presented by Obama's plan would be a big improvement over their current situation. And people who already like their health insurance wouldn't have to change anything.
I absolutely agree. That's why I want the gov't to require coverage for all of it, and let women and their doctors decide.
For the purposes of this post, I was thinking of abortions that are not performed for any medical reason related to either the mother or the fetus. The typically first trimester "I am pregnant and I choose not to continue the pregnancy" kind of abortion. ?
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd