Government Insurance to Cover Abortion

[pharmaspire]

Just read this article on yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_abortion

It concerns the much debated government health insurance. Although I agree that a universal healthcare plan would be ideal, I'm against the fact that something like abortion should be covered. This is my line of thinking: as much as abortion is a social issue it's also a moral issue. And incertain circumstances a woman should have the right to choose what to do about her pregnancy: incest, rape, and choosing between death for the mother or the child. For these listed choices (and maybe a couple of others I cant seem to think about right now) government funding should be in the realm of possibility. For all others I think it should not. What are your thoughts on this issue. I really feel like abortion will be a drawback to whatever progress has been made in this healthcare debate

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I really feel like abortion will be a drawback to whatever progress has been made in this healthcare debate

That sums it up.

Personally, I don't see it as a moral issue, and I'm sure that I'm in the minority there. It comes down to a woman's rights to control her body as she sees fit. If a woman doesn't want to carry her child to term, then that's her decision, no matter how many mores you apply to it.

Abortion needs to be on the table, and to be at least subsidized by insurance, because if you think about the realistic consequences, you should realize that having a would-be mother, who is unfit to raise a child, be able to elect to end that pregnancy is a boon to our society. This would be a net savings to the government (What're the chances the woman having the abortion has the means to raise a child? Exactly) and, ultimately, you and me the tax payer. Additionally, the child will not be brought into a world in circumstances that no child in a 1st world country should be born into, and this is a humane option to prevent that. It's not like the gov't is suggesting compulsory abortions for women in a certain SES or something.

How many thousands of children are born into families/to mothers that hate their guts and abandon them for the system to scoop up and dole out like stockbrokers do real estate? Yeah, that's real humane.

 

[117296]

Just read this article on yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_abortion

It concerns the much debated government health insurance. Although I agree that a universal healthcare plan would be ideal, I'm against the fact that something like abortion should be covered. This is my line of thinking: as much as abortion is a social issue it's also a moral issue. And incertain circumstances a woman should have the right to choose what to do about her pregnancy: incest, rape, and choosing between death for the mother or the child. For these listed choices (and maybe a couple of others I cant seem to think about right now) government funding should be in the realm of possibility. For all others I think it should not. What are your thoughts on this issue. I really feel like abortion will be a drawback to whatever progress has been made in this healthcare debate

My thoughts on the issue are that this is the right thing to do. I have no stance on the abortion issue (meaning I am neither pro-life or pro-choice.) If there is one thing I know, it's that there are two highly divisive sides to this conflict, and allowing plans that are representative of both sides is a good idea.

To do that, you'd need to be able to allow plans to pay for an abortion if the plan so allowed.

If everyone steps away from their personal beliefs for a minute, this makes sense.

 

[pharmaspire]

My thoughts on the issue are that this is the right thing to do. I have no stance on the abortion issue (meaning I am neither pro-life or pro-choice.) If there is one thing I know, it's that there are two highly divisive sides to this conflict, and allowing plans that are representative of both sides is a good idea.

To do that, you'd need to be able to allow plans to pay for an abortion if the plan so allowed.

If everyone steps away from their personal beliefs for a minute, this makes sense.

And in a way it makes sense, but this is one of the major obstacles in this debate. People are not going to abandon their personal and religious beliefs. Not even for a second, even if it's in the realm of reason. It would be difficult to sway people on the other side of the fence. And I think that will be a major drawback to having the bill pass. It seemed so close a couple of days ago, but I think they would fight over it for a long time before anymore progress is made.

 

[pharmaspire]

That sums it up.

Personally, I don't see it as a moral issue, and I'm sure that I'm in the minority there. It comes down to a woman's rights to control her body as she sees fit. If a woman doesn't want to carry her child to term, then that's her decision, no matter how many mores you apply to it.

Abortion needs to be on the table, and to be at least subsidized by insurance, because if you think about the realistic consequences, you should realize that having a would-be mother, who is unfit to raise a child, be able to elect to end that pregnancy is a boon to our society. This would be a net savings to the government (What're the chances the woman having the abortion has the means to raise a child? Exactly) and, ultimately, you and me the tax payer. Additionally, the child will not be brought into a world in circumstances that no child in a 1st world country should be born into, and this is a humane option to prevent that. It's not like the gov't is suggesting compulsory abortions for women in a certain SES or something.

How many thousands of children are born into families/to mothers that hate their guts and abandon them for the system to scoop up and dole out like stockbrokers do real estate? Yeah, that's real humane.

You bring up some very good points. But while the government might not intend the program to be abused, in the long run it is going to be, like most other government programs. So in finding a remedy for a disease we end up bringing forth another disease. Eventually we're gonna end up paying more than we bargained for.

 

[cemented]

I agree that it will be made into an issue
Absolutely ridiculous
I disagree that this will be abused because if someone is set on having an abortion they will no matter what. Although having said that they is always the possibility of abuse in any system
And FYI some insurance companies do help pay for abortions (few though) and they will not pay for a minor only the primary holder (amazing the things you read when you have time at work to kill)

 

[pharmaspire]

amazing the things you read when you have time at work to kill)

Lol. Doing the same thing. Dont get caught

 

[Garfield3d]

I agree that it will be made into an issue
Absolutely ridiculous
I disagree that this will be abused because if someone is set on having an abortion they will no matter what. Although having said that they is always the possibility of abuse in any system
And FYI some insurance companies do help pay for abortions (few though) and they will not pay for a minor only the primary holder (amazing the things you read when you have time at work to kill)

CUBeav alluded to how I feel about abortion in general, but Cemented articulated how I feel about government insurance used for this issue. People who are set on getting an abortion aren't going to be deterred by money. Either they will draw on some other expense in their life (which is bad because it will reduce their finances and quality of life) or they will resort to cheaper/shadier places to get an abortion (which is bad because the poorer quality of care will unnecessarily increase mortality in these cases). By having goverment insurance cover abortions, the government is able to better ensure the health of these individuals, and refusing coverage would not be a deterrent to abortion. Additionally, government insurance of abortions will make it easier for the government to follow the treatment and use of abortions, as opposed to potentially creating a sort of underground market for this kind of stuff.

As such, I don't see this as the government endorsing or taking a side on a moral issue. The morality of it doesn't ever get into play here. Government insurance simply recognizes that these are events that will happen one way or another, and insurance provides a way to help control the situation on both the mother's end and the government's end.

--Garfield3d

 

[tootoo30]

New flash: Government insurance already covers abortion in New York!

 

[Passion4Sci]

Additionally, government insurance of abortions will make it easier for the government to follow the treatment and use of abortions, as opposed to potentially creating a sort of underground market for this kind of stuff.
--Garfield3d

Interesting! So how do you feel about the gov't picking up on cocaine, marijuana and LSD sales? After all, it'd eliminate the underground market right? And allow for good control of the market, and help people follow proper usage of the drugs, maybe even curb abuse!

 

[PonderingChoice]

Interesting! So how do you feel about the gov't picking up on cocaine, marijuana and LSD sales? After all, it'd eliminate the underground market right? And allow for good control of the market, and help people follow proper usage of the drugs, maybe even curb abuse!

If you could show that funding drug sales would save the government money, I'd be in favor of it. Admittedly, this may not be in the case of abortion, since I read that a surprising number of mid-20's individuals have abortions, as opposed to the dread teenage mother.

 

[Garfield3d]

Interesting! So how do you feel about the gov't picking up on cocaine, marijuana and LSD sales? After all, it'd eliminate the underground market right? And allow for good control of the market, and help people follow proper usage of the drugs, maybe even curb abuse!

Actually, the taxation of opiates and several narcotics was the first course of option in the early 20th century at a time where drugs, both illicit and medicinal, were largely unregulated by the government. The Harrison Narcotics Act made it legal to distribute opiates such as cocaine so as long as it was taxed. The overall impact is presumed to have been lower overall consumption of opiates, but more importantly, this also helped establish a closed system for distributing opiates. Efforts to ban certain drugs outright occurred due to prevailing social views concerning a perception of heightened crime rates that result from any consumption of such drugs.

I won't presume to make conjectures and extrapolations as to what will happen by having government insurance cover abortions, as I have not extensively studied the subject, but I will recognize the reasoning behind it and the potential results that may occur. For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that this is good for the government from a monitor/control perspective, and this is good for the mother by funneling them towards licensed practitioners and decreasing their financial burden.

--Garfield3d

 

[pharm B]

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that this is good for the government from a monitor/control perspective, and this is good for the mother by funneling them towards licensed practitioners and decreasing their financial burden.

I agree with this. I think that abortion is an issue that's been settled legally and thus exists where everyone can see it. It's no longer a bogey man that people talk about in hushed tones. An unwanted pregnancy has all kinds of bad repercussions (and not just for the mother and child, but the rest of us).

Would the OP be the same kind of pharmacist who looks over to the dusty Plan B's on the shelf and back at the patient, saying "no, we're out of stock, and it will take a week to get here"?

 

[yappy]

Because abortion is legal in the US, I too agree that it should be covered by the proposed state plan that President Obama is fighting for. Abortion will always be a moral issue, even though it is in law. I guess it depends on what we as a society have decided what human life is - or what it's worth depending on stage of life.

 

[Carboxide]

The fact of the matter is, abortion is legal and therefore should be covered. If you don't want to cover abortion, then we shouldn't cover cancer therapy for people who smoke. We shouldn't cover gastric bypass. We shouldn't cover ANY other preventative care....because it's all a choice, just like abortion.

 

[charfdorn]

Because abortion is legal in the US, I too agree that it should be covered by the proposed state plan that President Obama is fighting for. Abortion will always be a moral issue, even though it is in law. I guess it depends on what we as a society have decided what human life is - or what it's worth depending on stage of life.

Well, cosmetic breast augmentation is legal and is a medical procedure. Should that be covered? What about alternative birthing techniques? Would the insurance pay a doula? I think you need to offer pretty comprehensive coverage for other alternatives if you're going to pay for abortion. I also think the Democrats would be best served by removing this from their plan, since it will drive about half of the country away, and cause many of them to lose their seats in the next election.

I guess my thought is that abortion is an elective procedure, and should be covered in the same manner as other elective procedures. Can someone articulate the counterpoint to this argument for me?

And again, I'm surprised by this move from a political standpoint. Anyone from a moderate-to-conservative district who votes for this bill is pretty much conceding his or her seat in the legislature.

 

[rxlynn]

If you could show that funding drug sales would save the government money, I'd be in favor of it. Admittedly, this may not be in the case of abortion, since I read that a surprising number of mid-20's individuals have abortions, as opposed to the dread teenage mother.

I read somewhere (can't remember where now) during my women's health class that there is a similar spike in abortion numbers for women in their early 40's, because they have a fairly large number of unintended pregnancies.

 

[AbsoluteRxGirl]

What the government should really do it's to make birth control pills affordable, so many women can get protected (in some way), and avoid many others problems that an abortion can cause.
Or if they really want to include abortion in their insurance, at least limit "the use", ex: 18 and under must have parents consent or something. Cuz the ones are going to use it like a contraception method is the young girls. And they don't know the problems will this cause in a future.

 

[pharm B]

I don't remember the brand (tri-Sprintec, maybe? or Yaz?), but I know we have 28 day birth control packs available for less than $25. It's not expensive to be responsible.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I don't remember the brand (tri-Sprintec, maybe? or Yaz?), but I know we have 28 day birth control packs available for less than $25. It's not expensive to be responsible.

Drospirenone & Ethinyl Estradiol (ocella) is like $26, yeah.

I mean hell, go dutch with your bf/gf and a box of high-quality condoms is what, 5 bucks? Protection is cheap. The argument about it being expensive is disingenuous.

 

[confettiflyer]

Put it this way: we can either pay for an abortion, or pay for the massive case of sepsis that turns up at the ER after an in-home coat hanger abortion.

 

[SHC1984]

I don't remember the brand (tri-Sprintec, maybe? or Yaz?), but I know we have 28 day birth control packs available for less than $25. It's not expensive to be responsible.

Tri-Sprintec is the cheap one. Yaz is very expensive, around 70 or 80 dollars.

 

[Passion4Sci]

Tri-Sprintec is 30 smackers in my neck of the woods, and Ocella (Yasmin generic, drospirenone/estradiol) is $26.99 for 3mg/.03mg.

Brand name stuff is (almost) always

 

[pharm B]

Government-supported abortion is no big deal. What'll really get tempers going is legally-mandated sterilizations.

Sorry, I just remember reading a thread on SDN the other day about welfare and how it's abused. One idea proposed was that all mothers on welfare get a depo shot routinely, or no check!

 

[pharm B]

Tri-Sprintec is 30 smackers in my neck of the woods, and Ocella (Yasmin generic, drospirenone/estradiol) is $26.99 for 3mg/.03mg.

Brand name stuff is (almost) always

I just scan 'em and bag 'em.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I just scan 'em and bag 'em.

Pour it lick it stick it!

 

[rxlea]

There will always be exceptions to the rule. It is pretty much impossible to examine them all on a case by case basis.

As far as abortion goes, in my opinion, it is probably better that a woman who does not want to bring a child into this world be allowed to get an abortion (in addition to the obvious things like rape, incest, etc.). But, let's not pretend that these women are not ending a life. Trying to rationalize abortion by saying "the cells are not far enough along to be considered a life" or "a fetus is not a baby" seems illogical to me. Point is: there is an unwanted pregnancy and the person is electing to end that pregnancy. I personally would never have an abortion and this is based on my own personal beliefs, but I do not have a right to impose those beliefs on anyone else. Furthermore, I do not believe religious beliefs have any place in the government (of course, there are probably many who will disagree with me here and I accept that).

What we need to focus on, as so many of you stated, is contraception. Contraception is pretty darn affordable and easily attainable. It comes down to personal responsibility for both women and men. Education, education, education!!!

And just to add something else...what about college women who would keep their child if they had support for it instead of pressure to get an abortion (child vs. career/degree)? There should be more resources for women in this category. Namely, child care, evening classes, support groups in college.

 

[Passion4Sci]

Government-supported abortion is no big deal. What'll really get tempers going is legally-mandated sterilizations.

Sorry, I just remember reading a thread on SDN the other day about welfare and how it's abused. One idea proposed was that all mothers on welfare get a depo shot routinely, or no check!

Hell yeah.

You're living on my money that I earned because I actually contribute to society, you have no right to procreate.

Take the time to get off your ass and get a job. When you're stable, THEN you can pop out the little kiddos again.

 

[charfdorn]

And just to add something else...what about college women who would keep their child if they had support for it instead of pressure to get an abortion (child vs. career/degree)? There should be more resources for women in this category. Namely, child care, evening classes, support groups in college.

If both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice/anti-life/anti-choice/whatever you want to call it debate would focus their efforts and resources on this, abortions would decrease dramatically. I don't think anyone wants to see more abortions performed, regardless of their moral opinion of the issue. Why don't we make contraception and support the focus? It's a more positive way to solve the debate anyway. In the mean time, we leave the laws the way they are and don't provide any new funding for abortions. Basically, let things be how they are now and try other approaches to reduce the number of abortions over all.

Sometimes I think I should go into politics because there just aren't enough practical, inclusive, common sense voices like this out there. But then again, I probably couldn't win an election with an approach like that because it asks both sides to give up some things.

 

[pharm B]

You could also be a politician as you've given us a long response that doesn't say much. You're for us maintaining the status quo. Are you a fan of abstinence education as well? That's worked really well in the past.

 

[charfdorn]

You could also be a politician as you've given us a long response that doesn't say much. You're for us maintaining the status quo. Are you a fan of abstinence education as well? That's worked really well in the past.

Abstinence education can be effective if it's paired with good, sound, contraceptive education. I'm all for abstinence first, because it's 100% effective, but abstinence programs usually end there. You have to teach that abstinence isn't the only line of defense. Abstinence-only education is a joke. It teaches kids that once you have sex once, you're going to hell, so you might as well have some fun along the way.

 

[cemented]

Abstinence education can be effective if it's paired with good, sound, contraceptive education. I'm all for abstinence first, because it's 100% effective, but abstinence programs usually end there. You have to teach that abstinence isn't the only line of defense. Abstinence-only education is a joke. It teaches kids that once you have sex once, you're going to hell, so you might as well have some fun along the way.

I completely agree with you
Abstinence education is like communism, great in theory but fails miserably in the real world.

 

[pharm B]

I completely agree with you
Abstinence education is like communism, great in theory but fails miserably in the real world.

I'm tellin' ya... ten years of forced sterilization policy would be a big wakeup call to welfare abusers. Their paycheck would go out the window and we might be able to divert tax money into better arenas, like the public schools.

 

[Passion4Sci]

I'm tellin' ya... ten years of forced sterilization policy would be a big wakeup call to welfare abusers. Their paycheck would go out the window and we might be able to divert tax money into better arenas, like the public schools.

I still dream every night for a Procreator's License, similar to a Driver's License, but for (as the name suggests), the privilege to produce children.