Should Healthcare cover the cost of Abortions?

[Mathematician]

That is ridiculous. You think that of all the complex, difficult issues surrounding unwanted pregnancy women have to tackle, the financial impact of getting an abortion is even going to make the top ten?

Uh... yeah. One of my "friends" (let's say associates) who inherited a sum of wealth from her parents at 19 admitted to me that she's had two abortions and uses the morning after pill regularly.

It's not really absurd to expect people to contribute something to their own health proliferation. I have hypothyroidism and require Synthoid to not get into a depressive spell. I'm not going to expect the rest of the world to shoulder ALL my costs, though.

 

[Alceste]

Norway still requires people to contribute some part of their own income to visitations and prescriptions. I'm merely suggesting that abortions should be handled in a similar way.

I don't know about Norway, but here we pay for prescriptions and those who can afford it pay about $40 a month to the public insurance agency. Those who can't afford it pay nothing. There's no deductible or maximum coverage and you are covered for life. There is no fee for a doctor or hospital visit. If there were, it would immediately create a 2 tier system because the poor would not go short of an emergency (like me with the dentist).

 

[jarofthoughts]

I believe that in regard to such topics as abortion some women, if completely disowned of any financial responsibility, would not be forthcoming in the use of birth control. And seeing as how others look upon doctors as legal drug dealers, others too could drive up costs and valuable time for others.

Well, that is definitely NOT what has happened here.
And considering that the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world (Literally. Look it up if you don't believe me.) I'd say it can't get much worse.

 

[Oneatatime]

Well, should it? What about elective abortion specifically?

It's important that everyone has access to safe healthcare. Charging for abortions will result in people either seeking cheaper and more dangerous abortions, and may (Depending on the availability of state welfare) result in a person who was already in a weak financial position having the additional burden of supporting a child. I accept that to some people free access to abortions is seen as a means of late contraception but I don't think everyone else should suffer for the idiocy of the few.

I feel that this is just something which the tax payer, myself included, has to put up with despite the annoyance I feel in circumstances where an abortion is being requested because of an individuals irresponsibility and foolishness. I'd rather suffer the irritation than have someone end up having a botched abortion or have a child born to useless parents. Before someone ralies against me for saying that all people having abortions fall into this catagory this is not what I said.

 

[Mathematician]

Well, that is definitely NOT what has happened here.
And considering that the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world (Literally. Look it up if you don't believe me.) I'd say it can't get much worse.

Your country abides by the same principles I'm espousing.

 

[Alceste]

Uh... yeah. One of my "friends" (let's say associates) who inherited a sum of wealth from her parents at 19 admitted to me that she's had two abortions and uses the morning after pill regularly.

It's not really absurd to expect people to contribute something to their own health proliferation. I have hypothyroidism and require Synthoid to not get into a depressive spell. I'm not going to expect the rest of the world to shoulder ALL my costs, though.

So if the fee would not discourage your idiot friend (she has money), who would it discourage?

People who live in countries with universal health care think it's absurd to do it any other way. Except those who work for insurance and pharmaceutical companies, I suppose.

Nobody would begrudge you the care needed to treat your hypothyroidism here. We all know that we will also need medical care at some point, and you pay taxes too. The idea of letting someone suffer from a treatable condition due to lack of funds is WAY more uncomfortable to most people in developed countries than the idea of paying taxes toward health care that might primarily benefit somebody other than yourself (for now).

 

[jarofthoughts]

Norway still requires people to contribute some part of their own income to visitations and prescriptions. I'm merely suggesting that abortions should be handled in a similar way.

Actually, those fees are very low and has a maximum limit of 1840 NOK (336$) per year after which the state will cover everything.
Hospital visits and the like are completely free and covered.

Example: I was hospitalize with the swine flu about a year and a half ago and stayed in the hospital for three weeks, one of them in a coma and two of which I had 24 our surveilance, on top of all the usual medical stuff like antibiotics (I had a bacterial lung infection in addition to the flu), tests and so on.
It cost me exactly... nothing.

When I was well enough to leave I just signed the release papers and went home.

Abortions are covered in the same way, except in Norway freely chosen abortions are limited to 12 weeks after conception. Abortions done after that period are usually only done if there is danger to the mother's life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just a thought: most of the discussion here assumes public health insurance. What about private?

Would anyone here want to make it against the law for a private health insurance provider to give coverage for elective abortions?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Just a thought: most of the discussion here assumes public health insurance. What about private?

Would anyone here want to make it against the law for a private health insurance provider to give coverage for elective abortions?

The twelve week limit is a part of the legislation in Norway and has nothing to do with coverage, so that would still apply.

 

[idav]

Just a thought: most of the discussion here assumes public health insurance. What about private?

Would anyone here want to make it against the law for a private health insurance provider to give coverage for elective abortions?

Like perhaps an atheist funded organization?

They can fund whatever they want but normally it is silly to not put restrictions on what is deemed medical necessity and even then I'm not sure they should fund someones liposuction. Nevertheless it would be in the contract where you sign your life away.

 

[Oneatatime]

Just a thought: most of the discussion here assumes public health insurance. What about private?

Would anyone here want to make it against the law for a private health insurance provider to give coverage for elective abortions?

I don't see how it would be in insurance companies interest to provide cover for abortions in the first place when it's not neccesary to save the mothers life. Not to be harsh or judgement but those most likely to be needing abortions aren't going to be the wealthy individuals who could afford insurance premiums to cover the cost of elective health treatments.

 

[Alceste]

I don't see how it would be in insurance companies interest to provide cover for abortions in the first place when it's not neccesary to save the mothers life. Not to be harsh or judgement but those most likely to be needing abortions aren't going to be the wealthy individuals who could afford insurance premiums to cover the cost of elective health treatments.

Why would that be true? Do you think wealthy women and girls are more eager to become mothers than poor women and girls?

 

[pwfaith]

I would agree 100% except for your first words. "Or they can just exhibit some self-control "

They do not and it would be an epidemic if we stopped Abortions and it is getting that way with them.

Sorry I just don't buy it. Why should people exhibit self-control? They don't need to and are not expected to anymore.

 

[Alceste]

Sorry I just don't buy it. Why should people exhibit self-control? They don't need to and are not expected to anymore.

They never did, and they were never expected to - my great grandparents had sixteen children. SIXTEEN! Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if everybody was doing that?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Sorry I just don't buy it. Why should people exhibit self-control? They don't need to and are not expected to anymore.

Perhaps Christians should exhibit self-control, and not push their personal religious beliefs into debates in secular society about women's reproductive rights, gay marriage, teaching evolution, or embryonic stem-cell research.

-Nato

 

[Father Heathen]

Question for pro-lifers; If someone isn't even responsible enough to use something as easy as birth control, what makes you think they're responsible enough to be a parent?

 

[Tarheeler]

I don't see how it would be in insurance companies interest to provide cover for abortions in the first place when it's not neccesary to save the mothers life. Not to be harsh or judgement but those most likely to be needing abortions aren't going to be the wealthy individuals who could afford insurance premiums to cover the cost of elective health treatments.

Because an abortion is much, much cheaper than carrying a pregnancy to term and having an assisted delivery, not to mention the future medical coverage of the child.

It's the same justification the insurance companies have for offering vasectomies and tubal ligations, often at no cost to the patient.

I don't know about all private insurers, but I've had several policies that covered the procedure.
Abortions would make sense to an insurance company, at least from a financial standpoint.

 

[Alceste]

Because an abortion is much, much cheaper than carrying a pregnancy to term and having an assisted delivery, not to mention the future medical coverage of the child.

It's the same justification the insurance companies have for offering vasectomies and tubal ligations, often at no cost to the patient.

I don't know about all private insurers, but I've had several policies that covered the procedure.
Abortions would make sense to an insurance company, at least from a financial standpoint.

Good point - If the insurance covers prenatal care and pediatric care, abortion is WAY cheaper. It is absolutely in the best interest of insurance companies to provide it.

 

[Oneatatime]

Why would that be true? Do you think wealthy women and girls are more eager to become mothers than poor women and girls?

No

I think that wealthy girls/women are probably less likely to have unwanted pregnancies than girls from poor backgrounds due to better access to education and ultimately better prospects in life. This is just a hunch so I'll need to see if there are any relable stats out there which give an indication of how unwanted pregancy rates varies with wealth.

 

[Oneatatime]

Because an abortion is much, much cheaper than carrying a pregnancy to term and having an assisted delivery, not to mention the future medical coverage of the child.

It's the same justification the insurance companies have for offering vasectomies and tubal ligations, often at no cost to the patient.

I don't know about all private insurers, but I've had several policies that covered the procedure.
Abortions would make sense to an insurance company, at least from a financial standpoint.

Fair point although I can see a case for limited or more expensive insurance for late abortions on the grounds that there can be more servere physical and emotional complications.

While I'm generally pro-choice regarding early abortions and abortions where the mothers life is in danger in find the thought of insurance companies competing to provide the cheapest abortions a little unsettling. There is something unpleasant about profit seeking over something which isn't particually pleasant.