# Abortion coverage should not be holding up the healthcare bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 7, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369 "2009-12-07T21:42:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/41 "2009-12-09T08:10:01Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Let me clarify something. > > The idea that SS is fully funded is the politically smart thing to say. And admitting that you are dipping into the SS fund to pay for other programs is not prudent. But we are running a huge deficit. So, yes… the SS checks being paid out aren’t bouncing. But when you are spending more than you take in, you have to borrow. The US govt is borrowing to pay for everything. The only way we can know if the SS fund is truly sound is if we have a balanced budget and run a surplus. Then we can truly see where the money is, and how solvent these government programs actually are. The idea that they are “dipping into the SS funds” to pay for other programs is nonsense. I know you would like it to be true so you can advance your agenda, but wanting something to be true does not make it true. If all you can do to advance your cause is make stuff up, then you might want to rethink your position. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/42 "2009-12-09T08:19:24Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > When the baby boomers start moving through the system in massive numbers, there won’t be enough people paying into the system to offset the projected outlay. > > It is also incredibly optimistic to believe that the government could manage and hold costs in line for UHC. Projecting 10 years out is a waste of time. Do you read what you write? First you are projecting in to the future for SS, then you turn around and say we can’t project out 10 years for UHC. Make up your mind. SS is projected to be solvent for the next 25 years. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/43 "2009-12-09T08:24:06Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > I don’t get your point about campaign finance reform, the fairness doctrine, or any of the other nonsense you babbled about. How do you connect those dots to what this discussion is about? In a prior post by you: > [@](#): > > I would have no problem with UHC if I thought it would work. But it can’t. Not in the states. Too many special interests, too much money, too much greed, too much corruption. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/44 "2009-12-09T08:26:36Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > When are you going to realize that being a koom-by-ya democrat doesn’t make you a better person? > > Want to help? Adopt a child, and put them on your medical plan. Multiply that by every liberal who wants to feel good about themselves, and the problem is solved for children up to, what… 22? > > But you wont do that. You’ll just bellyache about those crazy republicans who want to keep people from having health care. Seriously, this is your position? "If you think we could reform the health care system to something better - well, put your money where your mouth is, stop advocating for a reform, and instead massively change your life to adopt a kid to give insurance to - otherwise clearly you aren’t standing up for your principles? You’re against child rape, right? Well you should adopt 10 kids and then try your best not to rape them if you want to take a bite out of that problem. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/45 "2009-12-09T17:01:10Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Congress passed legislation to do so in 1990, 1992, 1997 and 2005. There was some mild back-tracking in the '97 legislation (but four fifths of the cuts still went into effect), but in general, the cuts stuck, which is why we briefly had a balanced budget at the end of the 90’s. The savings thus realized have been in the trillions. [Here’s](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3021#sgr) a breakdown. If the cuts do go into effect I suspect more doctors will start taking less Medicare patients. This is happening now due to low reimbursement rates and will only get worse with more cuts. > [@Simplicio](#): > > Well, the CBO disagrees. Can you think of any other reason not to start the program almost immediately? The CBO works with the numbers given to them by congress. There are plenty of ways to hide the true costs. I, for one, do not believe they will cut Medicare spending at all and I certainly do not believe that they can save that kind of money by trying to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. If they could I assume they would have been doing this for years now. The only conclusion we can draw is that congress has turned a blind eye to this waste…which doesn’t leave a good impression for any government run program. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/46 "2009-12-09T17:06:01Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The idea that they are “dipping into the SS funds” to pay for other programs is nonsense. I know you would like it to be true so you can advance your agenda, but wanting something to be true does not make it true. If all you can do to advance your cause is make stuff up, then you might want to rethink your position. While technically incorrect this is exactly what has been happening. We know there is no SS lockbox and congress is more than willing to spend the yearly SS surplus and then some. Both parties are guilty of this. Solvency will be an issue eventually unless they save the surplus (unlikely) or raise the cap on the SS payroll tax. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/47 "2009-12-09T17:27:30Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > If the cuts do go into effect I suspect more doctors will start taking less Medicare patients. This is happening now due to low reimbursement rates and will only get worse with more cuts. Some of that maybe, but unlike Medicaid, the group of Medicare patients is too large for most doctors and hospitals to turn away. Something like 40% of all medical spending is for Medicare patients, and the current plan is to allow a larger group of people to buy into that program, so I doubt most doctors will be able to deny them coverage and survive, except maybe a few niche practices that for whatever reason cater mainly to younger patients. > [@](#): > > The CBO works with the numbers given to them by congress. The CBO has historically underestimated savings and over-estimated costs in changes to the Medicare program made by Congress. So if Congress does try and hide costs as you claim, they’ve historically done a pretty crummy job of it. > [@](#): > > I, for one, do not believe they will cut Medicare spending at all They’ve done it succesfully eleven times since 1981. I don’t see any reason a twelth time is for some reason impossible. > [@](#): > > If they could I assume they would have been doing this for years now. The only conclusion we can draw is that congress has turned a blind eye to this waste…which doesn’t leave a good impression for any government run program. Again, they’ve done this in the past several times with similar levels of savings. Honestly, your entire argument seems to be based on repeated incredulity that Congress can’t or won’t do something that its done many times before in recent history. Maybe your right, that this Congress is specially incompitent or dishonest, but I don’t really see any reason to believe that’s the case. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/48 "2009-12-09T17:29:51Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The idea that they are “dipping into the SS funds” to pay for other programs is nonsense. I know you would like it to be true so you can advance your agenda, but wanting something to be true does not make it true. If all you can do to advance your cause is make stuff up, then you might want to rethink your position. [They’ve manipulating the accounting for the SS fund for years](http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html). ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/49 "2009-12-09T17:33:46Z")
Also, in penance for letting myself drag this thread off topic (though I’ll note I’m not as guilty as the people arguing about SS), I’ll note that the Senate version of the Stupak Amendment failed to get added to the Senate bill, and the main pro-life Dem Senator still seems open to allowing the bill to proceede. Course it still might cause trouble down the line (the House will need to vote on it at some point), I suspect this means that the anti-abortion bit will at least be watered down some before Obama signs the final bill. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/50 "2009-12-09T18:22:52Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Some of that maybe, but unlike Medicaid, the group of Medicare patients is too large for most doctors and hospitals to turn away. Something like 40% of all medical spending is for Medicare patients, and the current plan is to allow a larger group of people to buy into that program, so I doubt most doctors will be able to deny them coverage and survive, except maybe a few niche practices that for whatever reason cater mainly to younger patients. I suspect as more people buy into the program less people will be enrolling in medical schools. The brains will follow the dollars…that’s just human nature. > [@Simplicio](#): > > The CBO has historically underestimated savings and over-estimated costs in changes to the Medicare program made by Congress. So if Congress does try and hide costs as you claim, they’ve historically done a pretty crummy job of it. Underestimating the cost of a particular action is one thing. But they cannot make an estimate on things that are deliberately not included as part of this package or cuts that never materialize. > [@Simplicio](#): > > Again, they’ve done this in the past several times with similar levels of savings. What are the level of savings? Do you have a cite for money saved from stopping waste and fraud? > [@Simplicio](#): > > Honestly, your entire argument seems to be based on repeated incredulity that Congress can’t or won’t do something that its done many times before in recent history. Maybe your right, that this Congress is specially incompitent or dishonest, but I don’t really see any reason to believe that’s the case. No, I just do not believe that the proposed cuts in Medicare can stand if a much larger population of people are part of that system. At some point physicians will start looking at other career options if they cannot make up the loss by charging those with private insurance more. This is how the current system works. I actually wonder if some percentage of physicians will just stop seeing Medicare patients entirely and if this could cause people to flee any government program. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/51 "2009-12-09T19:41:57Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I suspect as more people buy into the program less people will be enrolling in medical schools. The brains will follow the dollars…that’s just human nature. Umm…OK, I disagree, but that’s not the argument I was responding to anyways. You said doctors will stop taking Medicare patients, and nothing about the idea that people will stop being doctors. My response was that the Medicare cohort is too large for doctors to not take in most cases, so this won’t happen. Do you agree with my response before we move on to another topic? > [@](#): > > Underestimating the cost of a particular action is one thing. But they cannot make an estimate on things that are deliberately not included as part of this package or cuts that never materialize. I don’t understand what you mean “not part of the bill”, all the proposed cuts are in the bill that the CBO scored, if the bill passes they will become law. As for the cuts actually materializing before they actually go in effect, it’s possible Congress will later vote to reverse the cuts, but as I said before, this hasn’t happened in the many previous recent instances of similar legislation, and to do so would mean Congress would need to go through the entire process of getting things out of commitee, defeating filibusters, reconciling, and getting the President’s signature that we’ve just seen is fairly non-trivial > [@](#): > > What are the level of savings? Do you have a cite for money saved from stopping waste and fraud? My previous cite has the savings realized by past Congressional actions, in '97 they realized 400 billion (in '97 dollars?) in savings from Medicare over ten years, about what they hope to get from the current bill. And again, the CBO in general underestimated these previous savings. > [@](#): > > No, I just do not believe that the proposed cuts in Medicare can stand if a much larger population of people are part of that system. At some point physicians will start looking at other career options if they cannot make up the loss by charging those with private insurance more. Maybe, but its not like all savings are taken out of doctors salaries, and the money paid by Medicare to Primary Care Doctors will actually increase under the new bill. ---
**Author:** ![perfectparanoia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a5b964/32.png) [@perfectparanoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perfectparanoia)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/52 "2009-12-09T20:27:30Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > I don’t know the cost of the abortion pill (especially in the US) but I do know that it isn’t an option for all women. For example, it is not recommended if you are more than 8 weeks pregnant, are at risk of ectopic pregnancy, or have certain blood conditions. Additional hijack. I took this pill once to speed along a miscarriage (baby was dead but not ejecting itself). I was pretty sure I was going to die. It was brutally painful and I ended back at the hospital for pain meds and it took me a week to recover. On another miscarriage occasion, I had a D&C (which is the normal ‘abortion’ procedure) and was in and out in an hour and was back to myself (physically, anyway) by the next day. Just because it is cheaper doesn’t mean it is better. I wouldn’t wish that pill on my worst enemy. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/53 "2009-12-09T20:37:46Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Umm…OK, I disagree, but that’s not the argument I was responding to anyways. You said doctors will stop taking Medicare patients, and nothing about the idea that people will stop being doctors. My response was that the Medicare cohort is too large for doctors to not take in most cases, so this won’t happen. Do you agree with my response before we move on to another topic? The two are related. Doctors are now refusing to take more Medicare patients because of low reimbursements among other reasons. Here is one link: > **[2003 Medicare Survey](https://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrmedsurv.htm)** The survey is admittedly old but I doubt opinion has changed much since then. The cohort will grow under the current plan. You are correct that doctors will have to take Medicare patients to stay in business. I think, and surveys show, that many physicians will retire early or find other careers. I don’t know what effect it will have on those contemplating a life in medicine but I think it would act as a deterrent. > [@Simplicio](#): > > I don’t understand what you mean “not part of the bill”, all the proposed cuts are in the bill that the CBO scored, if the bill passes they will become law. As for the cuts actually materializing before they actually go in effect, it’s possible Congress will later vote to reverse the cuts, but as I said before, this hasn’t happened in the many previous recent instances of similar legislation, and to do so would mean Congress would need to go through the entire process of getting things out of commitee, defeating filibusters, reconciling, and getting the President’s signature that we’ve just seen is fairly non-trivial. I was referring to the $234 billion doc fix that is not in the bill. The CBO cannot score this cost because it is not part of the bill. > [@Simplicio](#): > > My previous cite has the savings realized by past Congressional actions, in '97 they realized 400 billion (in '97 dollars?) in savings from Medicare over ten years, about what they hope to get from the current bill. And again, the CBO in general underestimated these previous savings. I didn’t see any mention of past savings from stopping waste, fraud and abuse. > [@Simplicio](#): > > Maybe, but its not like all savings are taken out of doctors salaries, and the money paid by Medicare to Primary Care Doctors will actually increase under the new bill. Correct. Here is the relevant paragraph from your link: “In Medicare, the biggest savings in the bills stem from reducing or eliminating overpayments to private insurance companies that participate in Medicare Advantage, reducing annual payment updates for hospitals and other providers, and, in the House bill, lowering prescription drug costs. For health care as a whole, both bills include measures creating a health insurance exchange to promote competition among insurance plans, reducing the amount that health insurers spend on administrative costs, expanding research on the comparative effectiveness of different medical procedures, investing in preventive care, penalizing hospitals with excessive readmission rates, and establishing pilot projects in Medicare for bundling payments for inpatient and post-acute care. In addition, the Senate bill would impose an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans to discourage excessive health care utilization and create an independent Medicare Advisory Board to develop and submit proposals to slow the growth of Medicare spending and improve the quality of care; the board’s recommendations would take effect automatically unless Congress later modified or overturned them.” Seems to me that eliminating overpayments (not sure exactly what they are referring to) to medicare advantage companies will have the effect of lower reimbursement for doctors. Reducing annual payment updates will have a similar effect over time. Lowering prescription drug costs? How do they do this without hurting drug companies? Investing in preventive care? An expansion in prevention will cost more, not less, over the long haul. Expanding research on the comparative effectiveness of different medical procedures? I doubt this will fly. Most people will see this as government getting between them and their doctor. Penalizing hospitals with excessive readmission rates? That’s a scary thought. Who determines the readmission rate. I think people will also see this as coming between them and their doctor ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/54 "2009-12-10T01:35:05Z")
Abortion I feel is murdered so why should taxpayers be forced to pay for it and have part of the blood on their own hands? Besides if UHC does include abortion coverage it ain’t gonna get passed, it’s gonna be dead on the doorstep. So if you want your UHC bill than you should be happy this happened. I on the other hand am upset this happened since if UHC had included the abortion coverage it wouldn’t be passed. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2009, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/55 "2009-12-10T01:37:20Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Abortion I feel is murdered so why should taxpayers be forced to pay for it and have part of the blood on their own hands? Besides if UHC does include abortion coverage it ain’t gonna get passed, it’s gonna be dead on the doorstep. So if you want your UHC bill than you should be happy this happened. I on the other hand am upset this happened since if UHC had included the abortion coverage it wouldn’t be passed. I feel that war is murder. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for it and have part of the blood on their own hands? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/56 "2009-12-10T01:39:15Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I feel that war is murder. Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for it and have part of the blood on their own hands? Because wars are out of self-defense usually and abortion is not. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/57 "2009-12-10T01:44:01Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Because wars are out of self-defense usually and abortion is not. One word: Iraq. And quite a few abortions are out of self-defense, if you count complications with the pregnancy that could cripple, sterilize or kill the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Wombats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Wombats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Wombats)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/58 "2009-12-10T01:45:10Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Because wars are out of self-defense usually and abortion is not. That’s a huge “usually”. Any chance we could get you to back that up with a cite? War may be out self-defense for one of the parties, but there’s also an aggressor nation that started the whole thing. I would contend that 50% of the parties involved in a war aren’t using “self-defense”. They’re there because they are the aggressor nation or they’re bound by a treaty obligation to assist another nation. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/59 "2009-12-10T02:27:19Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Abortion I feel is murdered so why should taxpayers be forced to pay for it and have part of the blood on their own hands? Because calling abortion “murder” doesn’t make abortion bad; it simply creates a justifiable category of murder. Wars kill actual thinking human beings. It’s also possible to oppose a war without supporting tyranny; you cannot oppose abortion without supporting tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Wombats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Wombats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Wombats)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369/60 "2009-12-10T02:34:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s also possible to oppose a war without supporting tyranny; you cannot oppose abortion without supporting tyranny. Could you flush this out a bit? Are you equating the anti-abortion crowd with tyranny because eliminating the right to abortion is a tyrannical act over women’s bodies? How so? We make decisions that limit the actions people can take all the time, including decisions over what they can do with their own bodies, what makes restricting abortion uniquely tyrannical? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-coverage-should-not-be-holding-up-the-healthcare-bill/520369.md?page=4)