Politics and Porn

[Bramblethorn]

Hoooooo boy, take a gander at Trumpcare:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6XFhXiXMAAKlLA.jpg:large

 

[Netzach]

Hoooooo boy, take a gander at Trumpcare:

Summary of contents:

*Abolition of income-based tax credits, creation of age-based tax credits
Coupled with the removal of the insurance mandate, this will make it so low and middle-income earners have their medical insurance subsidies removed and become unable to purchase coverage and will go without healthcare just like before. ABC estimates that will create 21mil new uninsured people.

*Removal of state 'borders' for health insurance providers
Doesn't encourage competition as the Republicans have been saying, just gives the companies an incentive to all headquarter themselves in the state with the least tax and least regulation. It's a giant gift to the companies, not their customers.

*Giant tax breaks to health insurance companies that pay their CEO's >$500,000 annually.
*MeekMe's facepalm emoji*
Not even trying to hide it!

*Defunds planned parenthood and excludes coverage of health insurance plans that cover abortion for reasons other than rape/life-of-the-mother/incest.
Because why not?

*Phasing out of the Medicaid expansion
Screwing over poor people as usual.
For Europeans: The Medicaid expansion of the ACA (Obamacare) made it much easier for those living on or below the USA's poverty line to get healthcare coverage who ordinarily could not afford it. Medicare is the one that ensures coverage of those aged >65 since prior to Medicare, insurance companies just wouldn't cover people above that age since they are financial liabilities for the companies.

And 7 pages of the 66-page bill are specifically about denying healthcare to lottery winners? o-O

Fortunately there's a bunch of libertarian republicans who are supposedly gearing up to defeat this trash. I can't see this ever being put into practice, but it's a nice view into the mind of the current legislature.

I *can* see this being put into practice. It's not *much* worse than what we had prior to any changes at all, and it's also completely untenable, which is why we made ANY changes whatsoever.

There's a reason MD's, hospitals, and policy people, even policy people to the right of single payer, have come out to say "this is a crap idea."

 

[Blue]

I *can* see this being put into practice. It's not *much* worse than what we had prior to any changes at all, and it's also completely untenable, which is why we made ANY changes whatsoever.

There's a reason MD's, hospitals, and policy people, even policy people to the right of single payer, have come out to say "this is a crap idea."

Even with all the fuss the republicans are making about how it supposedly doesn't destroy the public safety net enough, I'm sure there's a few sacred cows that even they won't actually poke with a 10 foot pole. They know that if suddenly millions of their voters and constituents find themselves without access to basic healthcare then their support is going to dissolve from the ground up. I can see them reverting to a post-90's state of healthcare as a virtue signal to the die-hard rightwing fanatics but I massively doubt that such a status would last for more than a year or two before republican federal/state legislature starts rebuilding the provisions of the ACA that they repealed.

Hopefully the anarcho-capitalist Republicans in Congress save the day by protesting that it doesn't destroy enough people's livelihoods than they want it to, and so don't vote in favour of it.

You poor Americans.

 

[Nezhul]

*Defunds planned parenthood and excludes coverage of health insurance plans that cover abortion for reasons other than rape/life-of-the-mother/incest.
Because why not?

That's bad on one hand.
On the other, as far as I understood, it only applies to insurance coverage? So you still can have an abortion for your own money?

Weeell.... I'd say that's fine, somehow. It's like trying to get insurance for breaking your leg while ignoring safety in the first place. If the pregnancy is not the result of rape or forced sex, then either it was planned or the parents didn't bother to use proper birth control, right? They kind of should have thought better before getting the girl pregnant.

So why should insurance company pay for that, when you had all the power to prevent it in the first place? They are supposed to cover unforeseen health complications that are beyond your control, are they not? Pregnancy is not that unforeseen and definitely not beyond control, if you ask me. Also I heard abortion can make a woman infertile, can cause all sorts of complications. I say you need to give a woman that right, but not make it overly accessible by being covered by insurance or being free.

I know I'm going to get smashed for that one now.

 

[KimGordon67]

That's bad on one hand.
On the other, as far as I understood, it only applies to insurance coverage? So you still can have an abortion for your own money?

Weeell.... I'd say that's fine, somehow. It's like trying to get insurance for breaking your leg while ignoring safety in the first place. If the pregnancy is not the result of rape or forced sex, then either it was planned or the parents didn't bother to use proper birth control, right? They kind of should have thought better before getting the girl pregnant.

So why should insurance company pay for that, when you had all the power to prevent it in the first place? They are supposed to cover unforeseen health complications that are beyond your control, are they not? Pregnancy is not that unforeseen and definitely not beyond control, if you ask me. Also I heard abortion can make a woman infertile, can cause all sorts of complications. I say you need to give a woman that right, but not make it overly accessible by being covered by insurance or being free.

I know I'm going to get smashed for that one now.

So why bother saying it? You clearly know all the arguments against this ridiculously over-simplified points that have been made a squillion times before by people who live in some fairytale land, so you're obviously just trolling. And trolling about an issue that could well be extremely sensitive for many people reading the boards. Quite clearly you've never had an abortion, but believe me, no one does it because it's a heap of fun. So maybe you should just pull your head in around this particular issue.

 

[Nezhul]

Ever occurred to you that these points have been made a squillion of times because there is a grain of truth to them? Controversial truth, but still, many people feel like that. If these points were over-simplistic nonsense, then they'd pop up occasionally, but not as much.

And I never said abortion was fun. I said that it should be less accessible to make people more aware of the consequences of pregnancy.

I'm not trolling I really think like I said. I'm just aware how controversial it is and get a feeling of the personalities on this board, so I know the reaction beforehand. Doesn't mean I should not post that.

 

[Blue]

So why bother saying it? You clearly know all the arguments against this ridiculously over-simplified points that have been made a squillion times before by people who live in some fairytale land, so you're obviously just trolling. And trolling about an issue that could well be extremely sensitive for many people reading the boards. Quite clearly you've never had an abortion, but believe me, no one does it because it's a heap of fun. So maybe you should just pull your head in around this particular issue.

I'm more concerned by an adult man thinking that that unplanned/accidental pregnancies are a myth.

 

[KimGordon67]

Ever occurred to you that these points have been made a squillion of times because there is a grain of truth to them? Controversial truth, but still, many people feel like that.

And I never said abortion was fun. I said that it should be less accessible to make people more aware of the consequences of pregnancy.

I'm not trolling I really think like I said. I'm just aware how controversial it is and get a feeling of the personalities on this board, so I know the reaction beforehand. Doesn't mean I should not post that.

My point about abortion not being fun was that there's no doubt a lot of readers here who have had one. Admittedly, it's not quite as bad as the pro-life billboards or bumper stickers because it's totally in one's face every day, but still ... think about how what you say might make someone who's just had a termination feel. Just for a nanosecond.

Many people feeling a particular way doesn't make it 'truth' - it just means many people feel that way.

 

[Nezhul]

I'm more concerned by an adult man thinking that that unplanned/accidental pregnancies are a myth.

Not a myth. But in the overwhelming majority of cases - they are the result of slacking with the precautions.

 

[KimGordon67]

Not a myth. But in the overwhelming majority of cases - they are the result of slacking with the precautions.

And yeah, someone being a bit 'slack' in a heated moment is a perfectly justifiable reason to say they should spend the next 20 years of their life raising another human being ... we wont' even consider the possibility that the one who's been 'slack' and the one who ends up doing the raising might not be the same person.

 

[Nezhul]

My point about abortion not being fun was that there's no doubt a lot of readers here who have had one. Admittedly, it's not quite as bad as the pro-life billboards or bumper stickers because it's totally in one's face every day, but still ... think about how what you say might make someone who's just had a termination feel. Just for a nanosecond.

But I don't judge abortions at all. They are necessary a lot of times, and they are the right of a woman. BUT they are not an insurance case, in my opinion. Because, well, they are the result of conscious choices of two individuals. Weather the choice was to have a baby (to then find out you don't want to have it atm) or the choice was to ignore safe sex - it's still a choice.

I don't really know how, as a man, you can "accidentally" make a baby. It's not like the orgasm is instanteneous and unexpected.

OK there are rare cases when the contraception measures don't work. But IMO those should be viewed separately.

 

[Nezhul]

And yeah, someone being a bit 'slack' in a heated moment is a perfectly justifiable reason to say they should spend the next 20 years of their life raising another human being ...

Where'd you get that?

For the stupid people:
No, never said that. Being slack is a perfect reason to go and fucking PAY for abortion with your own money.

 

[Blue]

But I don't judge abortions at all. They are necessary a lot of times, and they are the right of a woman. BUT they are not an insurance case, in my opinion. Because, well, they are the result of conscious choices of two individuals. Weather the choice was to have a baby (to then find out you don't want to have it atm) or the choice was to ignore safe sex - it's still a choice.

I don't really know how, as a man, you can "accidentally" make a baby. It's not like the orgasm is instanteneous and unexpected.

OK there are rare cases when the contraception measures don't work. But IMO those should be viewed separately.

Where'd you get that?

For the stupid people:
No, never said that. Being slack is a perfect reason to go and fucking PAY for abortion with your own money.

So you want passive punitive measures taken against women[+partner/family] who might not be able to afford an abortion, in the form of the health, financial and social stress of childbearing and rearing because they might have slipped up on their contraceptive use once?

That is thoroughly ridiculous.

 

[KimGordon67]

Where'd you get that?

For the stupid people:
No, never said that. Being slack is a perfect reason to go and fucking PAY for abortion with your own money.

So the guy's going to pay? Ha ha ha ha - sure. That'll work out well.

But let's, for a moment, live in this universe where you only get cover if you've been sexually assaulted (leaving aside the 'risk to the mother' reason, because that's a different ball game). So every woman who is eligible for this cover has to presumably PROVE the assault? Otherwise they don't get cover? That's an ace way to make an already unpleasant set of events even more unpleasant ... for, I repeat, the woman.

 

[Nezhul]

So the guy's going to pay? Ha ha ha ha - sure. That'll work out well.

Don't mix two problems here.

But let's, for a moment, live in this universe where you only get cover if you've been sexually assaulted (leaving aside the 'risk to the mother' reason, because that's a different ball game). So every woman who is eligible for this cover has to presumably PROVE the assault? Otherwise they don't get cover? That's an ace way to make an already unpleasant set of events even more unpleasant ... for, I repeat, the woman.

A woman who's been assaulted should go to police. It's police's job to prove things, not hers. And afaik that's done pretty easily.

 

[KimGordon67]

Don't mix two problems here.

A woman who's been assaulted should go to police. It's police's job to prove things, not hers. And afaik that's done pretty easily.

They're all part of the same problem. Unintended pregnancies can happen for myriad reasons, but in the vast majority of the cases, it's the women who end up with responsibility for the results. One of the plethora of reasons women should have unfettered access to safe options regarding termination.

'... that's done pretty easily'. You are totally fucking kidding me, aren't you? Do you actually understand how under-reported sexual assault is, and all the reasons for that?
And even in this la-la land where the police go about merrily proving every woman's charge of sexual assault ... in the interim, she's now six months pregnant, and well past the recommended date for a termination.

If you're going to comment knowledgeably on something, get some actual knowledge about it. If you don't really know very much about the topic, then say that, and get some actual information. Otherwise you're just offering an opinion that's based in fantasy, rather than reality.

 

[Nezhul]

Well of course! Because I say something you disagree with strongly - I live in a fairy land now!
Wee!

 

[KimGordon67]

Well of course! Because I say something you disagree with strongly - I live in a fairy land now!
Wee!

No - because you say something that has very little basis in actual facts. It's not something 'I disagree with strongly' ... it's something I've read quite a bit about over the years, as are most of the things I write about with a tone of authority. I've yet to see you back up ANY opinion you have with anything other than your experience. I know that laying a sexual assault charge and getting it seen through to a conviction is an extremely fraught and frequently unsuccessful process because there's a huge weight of research that demonstrates this - can you cite me the evidence that shows it's 'done pretty easily'? That's not even based on YOUR experience (as I'm going out on a limb here, and assuming you've never attempted to lay charges of sexual assault against anyone - although I could be wrong?), so I have no idea where you've gotten this idea from.

 

[Blue]

Well of course! Because I say something you disagree with strongly - I live in a fairy land now!
Wee!

If it's not fairy land then at least it's a very, very simplistic understanding of reality.

E.g with the insurance aspect of this conversation you initially didn't realize the huge burden that your proposal would place on the poorest demographics, a problem which was practically leaping out of the screen for me and I figure everyone else who read it.

Then when Kim brought up the issue of proving the validity of a sexual assault claim you proposed a countermeasure of "Well you can just prove it", as though legal hearings are ever so simple. A sexual assault claim can easily come down to he-said-she-said which can't be used to determine guilt, for example.

And when Kim adds nuance of how unplanned pregnancies can occur to your statements, you just make the silly quote above.

 

[KimGordon67]

If it's not fairy land then at least it's a very, very simplistic understanding of reality.

E.g with the insurance aspect of this conversation you initially didn't realize the huge burden that your proposal would place on the poorest demographics, a problem which was practically leaping out of the screen for me and I figure everyone else who read it.

Then when Kim brought up the issue of proving the validity of a sexual assault claim you proposed a countermeasure of "Well you can just prove it", as though legal hearings are ever so simple. A sexual assault claim can easily come down to he-said-she-said which can't be used to determine guilt, for example.

I have to admit I didn't initially consider the socio-economically skewed impact of such a proposal, predominantly because health care here is pretty much free, so the notion of either having to have insurance, or having to pay for something like this, take a while to percolate through my thought process. Luckily cost is not a factor for women considering a termination here. I guess that the current American situation, in which a huge chunk of the poorer population don't have health insurance, must mean there's already a skew in the rates of unwanted pregnancies?

 

[Nezhul]

E.g with the insurance aspect of this conversation you initially didn't realize the huge burden that your proposal would place on the poorest demographics, a problem which was practically leaping out of the screen for me and I figure everyone else who read it.

Yeah right. And there's not already a plethora of people who's insurance doesn't cover things like abortion.

Hell, in US there are a lot of people who's insurance doesn't cover even more important stuff than that! And you argue that the law makes a difference.

What you should be arguing for is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. By means of more accessible contraception, for example, rising public awareness, etcetra etcetra.

How many young men are still shy to go and by themselves a condom? That's the kind of shit you need to address.
How many parents are so uptight that they never introduce safe sex thoughts to their children?
How many people just don't care?

If a smoker smokes in bed and sets his home on fire - who is to blame? It's not like fire becomes less unwanted because he ignored all the safety measures. But at the same time, it's not like the insurance company has to pay for his stupidity.

Same with child control. There ALWAYS will be cases when the law doesn't work right and someone who should have gotten insurance will not get it. There ALWAYS be other cases where someone who shouldn't have gotten it - will.

Your argument is that there are cases where there's an unwanted pregnancy without the rape and any other reason for insurance. That's true.
But how many other pregnancies are terminated WITH insurance, while they should and could have been avoided in the first place? I'd say a lot more. A lot of abortions are made because of poor decision making or just not caring about it at the moment. Is that an insurance case? No. I don't think so. Why should insurance companies pay for that?

 

[KimGordon67]

Yeah right. And there's not already a plethora of people who's insurance doesn't cover things like abortion.

Hell, in US there are a lot of people who's insurance doesn't cover even more important stuff than that! And you argue that the law makes a difference.

What you should be arguing for is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. By means of more accessible contraception, for example, rising public awareness, etcetra etcetra.

How many young men are still shy to go and by themselves a condom? That's the kind of shit you need to address.
How many parents are so uptight that they never introduce safe sex thoughts to their children?
How many people just don't care?

If a smoker smokes in bed and sets his home on fire - who is to blame? It's not like fire becomes less unwanted because he ignored all the safety measures. But at the same time, it's not like the insurance company has to pay for his stupidity.

Same with child control. There ALWAYS will be cases when the law doesn't work right and someone who should have gotten insurance will not get it. There ALWAYS be other cases where someone who shouldn't have gotten it - will.

Your argument is that there are cases where there's an unwanted pregnancy without the rape and any other reason for insurance. That's true.
But how many other pregnancies are terminated WITH insurance, while they should and could have been avoided in the first place? I'd say a lot more. A lot of abortions are made because of poor decision making or just not caring about it at the moment. Is that an insurance case? No. I don't think so. Why should insurance companies pay for that?

Apart from the plethora of other arguments that have been levelled at this over-simplified version of events across the decades, that's a pretty slippery slope in terms of deciding who should and shouldn't be eligible for health care cover. On that basis, do you also deny coverage to smokers who get cancer, overweight people who get heart conditions, people who break a bone because they ran down a set of wet steps, people who are injured in car accidents that are their fault ... I think the point I'm making is pretty clear. There's a vast range of health treatments we require for things that are 'avoidable' if we make 'good' decisions - that doesn't mean we shouldn't be entitled to the treatment under a fair and just system.

No one is saying that there should be access to readily available, safe, and easy to use contraception. But at the same time, that should exist alongside an understanding that people should be unduly punished for contraception failing, or for a momentary lapse in judgement, or a misjudgement of a menstrual cycle, or the countless other reasons people get pregnant unintentionally. As you said elsewhere, we're not talking about cookies here - you're basically suggesting that a bad decision made by someone who cannot access the cash to pay for a termination should justifiably result in a lifetime of parenting ... and let's assume they're parenting in poverty, if they couldn't afford the termination in the first instance.

ALSO, let's assume we've just saved the insurance system $XX by not having for pay for that termination - you don't think there's going to be a cost to society for the child? Even from a strictly economic basis, failing to provide access to terminations just doesn't make good economic sense - the outcome is considerably more expensive.

It's an overly simplistic argument Nezhul. You maybe should just admit you misjudged this - without resorting to 19th centuries morality, it's never been a winnable argument.
Unwanted pregnancies are reduced in countries that have extremely liberal laws regarding contraception etc. Ready access to terminations is an integral part of those laws. It's just the way it is, regardless of what you think it 'should' be like.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Even with all the fuss the republicans are making about how it supposedly doesn't destroy the public safety net enough, I'm sure there's a few sacred cows that even they won't actually poke with a 10 foot pole.

I spent a lot of last year muttering "people wouldn't actually be that stupid" and I was wrong just about every time, so I can't share your optimism there :-/

They know that if suddenly millions of their voters and constituents find themselves without access to basic healthcare then their support is going to dissolve from the ground up.

Unless they can find a scapegoat to pin it on. Or just lie and tell everybody the chocolate ration has increased. We've already seen that happening (in the other direction) with crime stats.

They're all part of the same problem. Unintended pregnancies can happen for myriad reasons, but in the vast majority of the cases, it's the women who end up with responsibility for the results. One of the plethora of reasons women should have unfettered access to safe options regarding termination.

Side note: not all abortions come from unintended pregnancies. There are plenty of reasons why people who fully intended to get pregnant might end up choosing to abort.

 

[KimGordon67]

Side note: not all abortions come from unintended pregnancies. There are plenty of reasons why people who fully intended to get pregnant might end up choosing to abort.[/QUOTE]

I know ... I was just trying to keep it simple for Nezhul's sake. And I know you can't see his argument, but he would just countered that with saying insurance companies shouldn't have to cover people's 'choices' in that regard, and then I would have spent even longer arguing with him.
Honestly, the whole thing is high school level debating ... I really shouldn't have engaged again, but people bashing women who've had/are considering terminations just gets my back up.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

I don't know if this will matter to anyone's point of view on abortions, but...

When I was younger, I had several girl friends that got pregnant 'accidentally'. Mostly cases of failed birth control, but some because of carelessness. At the time it was unheard of for abortion to be covered under an insurance plan. My friends chose to have an abortion because they were either afraid of dealing with the situation or they thought they were too young to raise a kid. For whatever reason, they chose to have an abortion and came up with the money to pay for it on their own. None of them even thought "wow, I wish this was covered under my health plan."

Years later, insurances started to cover the cost of abortions At first it was for medical reasons, then cases of rape, then just everyone. They also came out with the Plan B pill. Insurance premiums started to rise (for many reasons, not just because of the added medical coverage). Also, when you signed up for an insurance plan you chose what kind of coverage you wanted. You started with basic healthcare and added riders for additional coverage (hospitalization, maternity, mental health, vision, dental, etc) A few years later, they changed it so all plans included everything (dental and vision became separate policies) and insurance rates went up tremendously. You no longer had a choice. Single men, women not of childbearing age, women who couldn't get pregnant all had to have maternity coverage which caused the rates to be too high for a lot of people to afford health insurance at all. Later, when healthcare moved toward a more government-based system, the options and cost were even worse.

It doesn't sound like anyone on this thread is AGAINST abortion, but have different opinions on whether it should be covered by insurance. Personally, I don't think it should be included in basic healthcare. I feel the same about maternity coverage. Those items should still be added at an additional, optional cost. Choosing to get pregnant or choosing to terminate a pregnancy is still something you intentionally have added to your healthcare needs, thus you should bear the added cost for insurance that includes that. Consider a woman who desperately wants to have children but is unable to. Should she have to pay for other women to get an abortion? Religious people or other pro-life advocates...is it their responsibility to cover the cost of all those who choose abortion?

There should be an exception for pregnancies resulting from rape and cases where the mother's health is at risk. Also, in the horrible cases where the baby is not developing well enough to sustain life after birth. Those examples were not a choice and should fall under regular health plans. (And in rape cases, it only needs to be reported to the police as rape. It doesn't depend on evidence or prosecution.)

There are a lot of other procedures that are not covered by insurance unless it is medically necessary. A breast reduction is considered cosmetic unless the weight of your breasts is causing back pain and other problems that affect your ability to lead a healthy, fully functioning life. In that case, it is a medical problem covered under insurance. Keep in mind, government healthcare/welfare (for adults; children are different) will not cover ANY dental procedures except having a bad tooth pulled and dentures. That is considered medically necessary, but they won't cover filling a cavity, a root canal, or even a basic checkup. They will cover an eye injury, but not not corrective lenses if you need them. They will not cover a 'scheduled' surgery such as removing your apendix even if it is needed or advised. You have to wait until it gets so bad that you go to the emergency room to have it removed. A hernia...not covered unless it ruptures and is medically necessary AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM. So, where should abortion fall on that scale?