Skip to main content

View Diary: Insurance Industry Expert Says Stupak Would Practically Mean No Abortion Coverage (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this brings up a good point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AmericanRiverCanyon

    I'm personally opposed to people like Octomom and the Gosselin's spawing whole baseball teams of kids using expensive fertility treatments - plus the megabucks spent for these infants in NICUs.

    How can I get an insurance plan through my employer that doesn't make me subsidize this stuff?  
    Oh yeah, I can't.

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. ~ Naploeon Bonaparte

    by CParis on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:54:58 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Octomoms of this world didn't get abortions (0+ / 0-)

      which is how they got where they are, and fertility treatment may still be covered. The ones who didn't do the octomom thing are the ones you think you are refusing to cover here. Please think through your comments before striking out at whatever women make you mad, as a justification for your not supporting the pro choice position.

      •  Alas they have a point, as (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CParis

        .... we have in my bipolar district half liberals and moderates, and half religious fundies, and it's the ultra wealthy, stay at home mothers with 4 to 6 kids who homeschool who are the biggest right wing conservatives and the biggest supporters of extremist Republicans.
        All the Repubs in the primary kept emphasizing that tax cut for married couples, and their only government theme is more tax cuts and deductions. Does this effect their family planning? You betcha.

        "Toads of Glory, slugs of joy... as he trotted down the path before a dragon ate him"-Alex Hall/ Stop McClintock

        by AmericanRiverCanyon on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:24:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think you are getting the point of my (0+ / 0-)

        comment.  I am very strongly pro-choice and I also understand that individuals and their healthcare practitioners are the only ones who should be making decisions about their care - whether they want to have no children or ten - it's not my business.

        The point I was making was that Congress is making the argument that American taxpayers should not have to pay for (or subsidize the insurance costs) of a specific medical procedure - abortion.

        Well, I am pretty sure alot of folks would say they don't want to pay for a bunch of different things that our taxes support - wars, federal executions, Dick Cheney's govt pension & healthcare, tax exemptions for religious institutions, etc.  
        But we understand that some things are for the common good, and we can't pick & choose what our taxes support.  

        Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. ~ Naploeon Bonaparte

        by CParis on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 09:12:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can say that, but then stop picking and (0+ / 0-)

          choosing among the women's procedures you want to ban, and using as the justifying example someone whom you criticize as support for your position, but who didn't use them either.

          If you can't pick and choose what you want your tax money to support, where do you get off picking abortion as one not to support. And asking women to pay the full freight for less coverage.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site