REVEALED: The GOP’s NEW plan to repeal, replace Obamacare

**-Lazarus-** · 09-20-13, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

Strike VI and it doesn't sound too bad.

I dunno VI isn't that big of a deal. It doesn't prohibit abortion or keep insurance companies from covering it. It seems to just allow insurance companies to treat abortion just like any other elective procedure rather than forcing them to cover it (except in the case of medical need).

I don't see the problem. What am I missing here?

**WickedTribe** · 09-20-13, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I dunno VI isn't that big of a deal. It doesn't prohibit abortion or keep insurance companies from covering it. It seems to just allow insurance companies to treat abortion just like any other elective procedure rather than forcing them to cover it (except in the case of medical need).

I don't see the problem. What am I missing here?

It also singles abortion out specifically as not receiving federal funding, so it's not just like other elective procedures, and again singles out abortion expenses as not being treated as medical expenses for the purpose of tax write-offs.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-20-13, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

It also singles abortion out specifically as not receiving federal funding, so it's not just like other elective procedures, and again singles out abortion expenses as not being treated as medical expenses for the purpose of tax write-offs.

I agree with the idea of government staying the hell out of social issues. It's a social issue except where rape, incest and the health of the mother are involved and that is included in there too. Legislating morality one way or the other has always been problematic IMO.

Still don't see a problem with it. Plastic surgery shouldn't receive federal funding and neither should elective abortion. What this also does though and what you may not have thought about, is it prevents legislators from coming back later and trying to tie federal funding for the program to abortion where federal funding for the entire program could be denied to an organization based on the organization's stance on providing abortions or not providing them. This is something I'm sure legislators on one side or the other would come back and try to do eventually so now that I think about it, it's a smart provision.

**Kanati** · 09-20-13, 10:47 AM

I don't think I have any issue with it being classified as an elective. I have an issue with it being singled out in an entire section of the bill and being called "respecting human life". That has religious overtones and has no part in the legislative process. Get a list of elective procedures and lump it in as being just that and I could feel a lot better about it.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-20-13, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

I don't think I have any issue with it being classified as an elective. I have an issue with it being singled out in an entire section of the bill and being called "respecting human life". That has religious overtones and has no part in the legislative process. Get a list of elective procedures and lump it in as being just that and I could feel a lot better about it.

I could agree with that. But I see political, not religious overtones to this. Taking abortion out of the mix entirely with this provision is smart for both sides and it doesn't enforce anyone's agenda either way. You have to admit that it's highly unlikely that Democrats or Republicans would come back later and try to limit funding based on an organization's view on boob jobs in order to try and enforce their political agenda. But abortion? That's a hot button issue unless it is taken off the table entirely which this does.

Just another way of looking at it is all I'm saying.

**WickedTribe** · 09-20-13, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I agree with the idea of government staying the hell out of social issues. It's a social issue except where rape, incest and the health of the mother are involved and that is included in there too. Legislating morality one way or the other has always been problematic IMO.

Still don't see a problem with it. Plastic surgery shouldn't receive federal funding and neither should elective abortion. What this also does though and what you may not have thought about, is it prevents legislators from coming back later and trying to tie federal funding for the program to abortion where federal funding for the entire program could be denied to an organization based on the organization's stance on providing abortions or not providing them. This is something I'm sure legislators on one side or the other would come back and try to do eventually so now that I think about it, it's a smart provision.

Yes, but it's specifically singled out as being ineligible for funding. Currently, most health plans cover things like vasectomies, Viagra, etc., and there's no indication that they won't be able to continue to do so with this plan in place. The same would not be true of abortion.

**-Lazarus-** · 09-20-13, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yes, but it's specifically singled out as being ineligible for funding. Currently, most health plans cover things like vasectomies, Viagra, etc., and there's no indication that they won't be able to continue to do so with this plan in place. The same would not be true of abortion.

What I said still applies. Taking abortion out of the federal funding equation completely eliminates it for use as a bargaining chip for any future legislation that might limit funding under this new health care bill. It's a good thing. And it doesn't limit abortion at all.