Universal Health Insurance & Abortion:

[Aquila]

As everyone knows a hot debate is raging in our country regarding universal health insurance. Most conservatives fear Obama’s plan will lead to an entirely socialized health insurance system like that found in Canada and Europe. We have read discussions about the pros and cons of universal health insurance from many different angles. However, there is one possible effect of universal health insurance that I’ve not seen discussed, the effect of universal health insurance on the abortion industry.

Today the abortion industry thrives in private health care in the United States. Seeing that it is legal it goes relatively unregulated and unrecorded. However, in Ireland (where they have universal health insurance) abortion is strictly regulated in that it is permitted only if the pregnancy is a clear and present danger to the mother. Seeing that public funding fuels the Irish health care system elective procedures (such as abortion) are an issue of public funding and policy.

In the United States public funding for abortion services and agencies that offer abortion services are often denied funding under Pro-Life Presidents. However, the private industry still flourishes slaughtering nearly multiplied hundreds of thousands of unborn children a year. If the United States were to adopt a universal health insurance program using public funding all abortion services would be subject to a President’s decision to deny funding to health care facilities nationally. Therefore if any hospital or clinic offered abortion services, they could be denied the public funding they receive from the public health insurance system. In order to maintain funding from the public health insurance program all hospitals and clinics would cease to offer abortion services. Those clinics providing only abortion services would loose all funding and be put out of business overnight.

The power of public policy regarding abortion is one strategic way Irish Pro-Life Catholics have been able to maintain a pro-life culture in Ireland.

Imagine a prolife President under a universal public health insurance program issuing an executive order to deny funding or payment to any medical office, facility, or practitioner who provides abortion services. Access to abortion from coast to coast could be greatly restricted in 24 hours.

Thoughts?

[coadie]

There is a high correlation between abortion and breast cancer. I can explain it. In catholic countries where aabortion is illegal, there are lower cancer rates. The plan also will mandate coverage be part of every policy. It appears they will remove the FOCA and demand even catholic hospitals give abortions if patients want them.

jillstanek.com covers this topic well. Abortion is the hottest issue out there in terms of the Politicians wanting to make it a political argument and not a religious one.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

There is a high correlation between abortion and breast cancer. I can explain it. In catholic countries where abortion is illegal, there are lower cancer rates.

Coadie, I’d like to know what Catholic countries you’re talking about so I can take a closer look.

The plan also will mandate coverage be part of every policy. It appears they will remove the FOCA and demand even catholic hospitals give abortions if patients want them.

Ah, yes – if a Prochoice president is in power. Public funding is immediately cut to agencies providing abortion services under Pro-Life Presidents. Universal health insurance would open an entirely new battlefield in the abortion war. A battlefield where the constitutionality of a procedure wouldn’t be in question… access would become an issue of funding based on it being elective or necessary to save a woman’s life.

jillstanek.com covers this topic well. Abortion is the hottest issue out there in terms of the Politicians wanting to make it a political argument and not a religious one.

Coadie, while abortion is a religious issue for those of us with religious values… for most of society it’s a political issue. In today’s world you can’t regulate, record, or restrict anything on the grounds of it violating your private religious sensitivities. You have to realize that the life blood of all institution in the modern world is money. Whoever controls the money… controls society.

[coadie]

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc_summary.htm

I realize it is a political issue. But it is still in the realm of health. when we add money, social engineering should want to reduce activities that turn into costs.

If we break women into 3 groups. Never have been pregnant, have had a baby and have had a pregnancy artificially terminated. We see that giving birth causes a reduction in cancer rates. I was just a little indirect, but now we see that cancer rate starts going upward in the ages of the 50's. Now if i give you samples in Latin america where abortion is forbidden, some still leave and have abortions. But we still see in Latin america where it is legal, the already have a lower life expectancy by that meaning they die of other causes before getting cancer. So then we go to meta studies and age ajustments. If we add a family history of cancer to having had an abortion, we almost attain a death sentence.

The world’s first known abortion-breast cancer settlement was reported in Australia in 2001. An Australian woman who’d obtained an abortion sued her physician for medical malpractice. She claimed he failed to inform her of the research linking abortion with breast cancer and the possibility of emotional damage which she might suffer as a result of her abortion. Although she hadn’t developed breast cancer, her attorney, Charles Francis, said she nevertheless received a significant sum. [Patrick Goodenough, “First Case Linking Abortion-Breast Cancer Settled,” Cybercast News Service, www.CNSNews.com, January 4, 2002]

Now with Obamascare, he has it written that we can't sue the federal government for malpractice. But they won't disclose risks.
This is one piece of motivation to remove all abortion related laws at the state level.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc_summary.htm

I realize it is a political issue. But it is still in the realm of health. when we add money, social engineering should want to reduce activities that turn into costs.

If we break women into 3 groups. Never have been pregnant, have had a baby and have had a pregnancy artificially terminated. We see that giving birth causes a reduction in cancer rates. I was just a little indirect, but now we see that cancer rate starts going upward in the ages of the 50's. Now if i give you samples in Latin america where abortion is forbidden, some still leave and have abortions. But we still see in Latin america where it is legal, the already have a lower life expectancy by that meaning they die of other causes before getting cancer. So then we go to meta studies and age ajustments. If we add a family history of cancer to having had an abortion, we almost attain a death sentence.

As you can see, cutting funding for all abortion services would also become an issue of public health and cost savings. If funding for facilities providing abortions was to be cut it would reduce the number of breast cancer cases thereby saving the system big money. People speak pocket book... sad... but true.

Now with Obamascare, he has it written that we can't sue the federal government for malpractice. But they won't disclose risks.
This is one piece of motivation to remove all abortion related laws at the state level.

Why sue the Fed for malpractice if a doctor is negligent?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Aquila

As you can see, cutting funding for all abortion services would also become an issue of public health and cost savings. If funding for facilities providing abortions was to be cut it would reduce the number of breast cancer cases thereby saving the system big money. People speak pocket book... sad... but true.



Why sue the Fed for malpractice if a doctor is negligent?

I think, not sure on this, but I think the doctors will be protected against lawsuits. I think that is part of the deal.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Esther

I think, not sure on this, but I think the doctors will be protected against lawsuits. I think that is part of the deal.

Docs not protected. The feds are. You see your family doc with a headache. he calls the feds and you get pills. You come back and he sees an occular impairment and headaches still there. He schedules a Neurologist. Then you wait, They don't approve MRI. Time goes by and another visit and neurosurgen gets called and you have an inoperable brain tumor. Took 4 months to long to get a craniotomy scheduled. can't sue the feds for dragging their feet. Sue the doc for what? He didn't operate. Who sues the VA? The Air Force docs also have immunity. Federal medicine will let the Feds get the money and the docs get the risk.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

Docs not protected. The feds are. You see your family doc with a headache. he calls the feds and you get pills. You come back and he sees an occular impairment and headaches still there. He schedules a Neurologist. Then you wait, They don't approve MRI. Time goes by and another visit and neurosurgen gets called and you have an inoperable brain tumor. Took 4 months to long to get a craniotomy scheduled. can't sue the feds for dragging their feet. Sue the doc for what? He didn't operate. Who sues the VA? The Air Force docs also have immunity. Federal medicine will let the Feds get the money and the docs get the risk.

Coadie, I think you're really misinformed as to how Obama's plan is envisioned to work. Ultimately, after all is said and done, all Americans will be able to buy into a government subsidized health care plan like those possessed by members of Congress. I work for the government and I too have a government plan. It doesn't work the way you're describing it. You see essentially the United States government will approach the major PRIVATE insurance providers and use the bargaining power of the American people's tax money (much the way government uses the bargaining power of government employees) for a health insurance policy that covers all Americans. When the American government says, "We want to purchase insurance plans for 3 hundred million tax paying Americans.", with that kind of contribution the premiums will be VERY affordable. Essentially the United States government will pick up all Americans as though they too were government employees like me. With that kind of contribution from tax payers the premium most Americans will be expected to pay will be in the basement. Again, it's a contract between the United States government and PRIVATE insurance companies to cover all Americans. This will also generate competition between the insurance companies regionally using market forces (gotta love Capitalism!) to bring the premiums down even further as each insurance provider competes for the bid. It will be the biggest insurance coverage contract in history. Let's say that in your region UHC (United Health Care) gets the contract. You will have to choose... either purchase insurance on your own with the going market rate, sign up for a policy offered by your employer... or sign up for the policy mirroring that of those in Congress offered by UHC for all American citizens. Let's say you sign up for the UHC policy subsidized by the government. Now if you go to the doctor you give them your UHC health insurance card just as though you were a government employee like me and they will give you treatment like they do me and my family. Your doctor will then file the claim with the insurance company for payment. The only way you'll be denied any kind of treatment is if it is elective or not covered by your policy. Now here's where the plans like Congress come in... you'll possess the same coverage as your Congressmen. You'll only be denied treatment if it's something that your Congressmen would be denied treatment for. These procedures are typically elective and cosmetic. You'll be issued a prescription for your pills just as you would if you had my government subsidized plan. You'll be able to schedule an MRI and have it done ASAP as with my government subsidized plan.

Coadie, I'm a government employee with a government subsidized plan through UHC. It's not the Cadillac plan like those in Congress but it's far better than anything corporate is offering and I've never been denied coverage for anything. Whoever is feeding you this line of bull your spewing owes you an apology my brother. And in the name of Christian ethics... you really should strive to tell the truth not wild scary tales of lies and misinformation parroted by right wing spin doctors.

It's one thing to say that you don't believe you should have a government subsidized insurance plan because you don't believe tax payers should fit that kind of bill. However, it's entirely another when you don't tell the truth about the plans on the table.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Esther

I think, not sure on this, but I think the doctors will be protected against lawsuits. I think that is part of the deal.

The expression we look for is named "tort reform"
These malpractices are civil torts.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

As you can see, cutting funding for all abortion services would also become an issue of public health and cost savings. If funding for facilities providing abortions was to be cut it would reduce the number of breast cancer cases thereby saving the system big money. People speak pocket book... sad... but true.



Why sue the Fed for malpractice if a doctor is negligent?

I didn't spell that out. If the doctor has to have the consent of the Feds and the outcome is detrimental, you can't sue the Feds because that is the law. It was not the docs decision.