Why pro-life advocates should favor universal healthcare

Viki63 · #1 Jun 16, '12, 4:46 pm

Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:"Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

ConstantineTG · #2 Jun 16, '12, 4:50 pm

Universal healthcare is good. The sad thing is many secular governments see abortion as healthcare and therefore provide is as part of it. I live in Canada and have been the beneficiary of universal healthcare. Both my kids were delivered via c-section and one of my kids were born with intestinal malrotation that necessitated surgery. In total I spent like 150-200 dollars between those three stays in the hospital. All that money is for the ridiculous parking fees they charge us.

To give a secular argument, I believe abortion is a selective surgery and therefore should not be funded by the government. Since it is a "choice" not a "necessity".

Jim Dandy · #3 Jun 16, '12, 6:40 pm

I hope and pray the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare so Congress can start over and produce a better healthcare plan.

If the Canadian model is so good, why do so many wealthy Canadians come to the states for their serious health problems? Just asking.

MidnightSun12 · #4 Jun 16, '12, 7:06 pm

I personally disagree with this article. Making condoms, the pill, and the morning after pill more accessible through free healthcare may reduce the number of later term abortions, but these things are still sinful and are never morally permissable. The church makes it very clear that supporting an immoral action is never allowable even if there may be positive consequences that follow...

The only way to fix the abortion problem is to start properly catechizing people and bringing them into the faith. We need to bring back the concept of sin in our society. We need to teach people what is moral and what is immoral and public healthcare can never do that (it can only mask the larger problem).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy

If the Canadian model is so good, why do so many wealthy Canadians come to the states for their serious health problems? Just asking.

I agree with you there Jim, the Canadian model certainly has deficiencies. The system has some proficiencies as well, but given the amount of money that the Canadian taxpayer puts into healthcare (which is enormous) it really is performing quite poorly compared to many other systems around the world. Our system also funds elective surgery such as abortion and sex changes which are both extremely immoral...

PennyinCanada · #5 Jun 16, '12, 7:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

To give a secular argument, I believe abortion is a selective surgery and therefore should not be funded by the government. Since it is a "choice" not a "necessity".

Well played.

**po18guy** · #6 Jun 16, '12, 8:20 pm

Let's apply some economic theory here.

One of the purposes of universal healthcare is to allow everyone to more freely access a doctor. Lower the cost, you increase the participation. More patients for the same doctors.

I do not believe that the bill provides a single additional doctor, nurse, technician, hospital or clinic.

Rationing of healthcare must follow. Waiting times will increase.

triumphguy · #7 Jun 16, '12, 8:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy

I hope and pray the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare so Congress can start over and produce a better healthcare plan.

If the Canadian model is so good, why do so many wealthy Canadians come to the states for their serious health problems? Just asking.

Not because they can't be fixed/cured/helped in Canada, but because they don't want to wait a couple of months.

nordskoven · #8 Jun 16, '12, 9:10 pm

Eight billion dollars of ONE YEAR of Obamacare fees collected by our favorite jack-booted thugs, the IRS, will net eight billion dollars. Eight billion dollars divided by $200,000 per student in medical school tuition, if doled out as free grants, can net 40,000/forty-thousand new doctors. Anybody up for supply-side medical economics? What if we dumped our cash into new doctors, lots of 'em? Or give 1/2 free grants to med school and get 80,000 new doctors funded in one year. PS The IRS secretly hates the thought of becoming Obamacare's collection agency and hammering households who don't fork over the projected $700 per household member; eating up those economy-bumping refunds and burdening those who are already under water on their tax payments.

Ropata · #9 Jun 16, '12, 9:10 pm

Pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates should all support universal health care because it is good for people to have easy access to good health care no matter what their wealth. It should not be supported as a tactic aimed at raising or lowering the number of abortions.

**po18guy** · #10 Jun 16, '12, 9:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viki63

Here is a well-reasoned article which for me helps resolve the disconnect between my dislike of Obamacare and abortion, and my desire to support universal healthcare for everyone:Universal Healthcare tends to cut the abortion rate..
T.R. Reid states:"Increasing health-care coverage is one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of abortions -- a fact proved by years of experience in other industrialized nations. All the other advanced, free-market democracies provide health-care coverage for everybody. And all of them have lower rates of abortion than does the United States."

"UHC" as a concept, probably yes. In relation to our current monstrosity of a debt-producing, Church-crushing bit of tyranny - no.

reconman · #11 Jun 16, '12, 10:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Universal healthcare is good.

No it's not. It's a horrible, socialist idea. One thing we've learned in the U.S is that the feds are the worst managers of anything. The more they encroach, the worse it gets.

ConstantineTG · #12 Jun 16, '12, 10:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconman

No it's not. It's a horrible, socialist idea. One thing we've learned in the U.S is that the feds are the worst managers of anything. The more they encroach, the worse it gets.

I am in Canada and I know it is great.

reconman · #13 Jun 16, '12, 10:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I am in Canada and I know it is great.

Good for you. Keep it there.

Viki63 · #14 Jun 17, '12, 1:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MidnightSun12

I personally disagree with this article. Making condoms, the pill, and the morning after pill more accessible through free healthcare may reduce the number of later term abortions, but these things are still sinful and are never morally permissable. The church makes it very clear that supporting an immoral action is never allowable even if there may be positive consequences that follow...

The only way to fix the abortion problem is to start properly catechizing people and bringing them into the faith.

I don't think you understand the article. Abortions are not reduced by making condoms, pills and morning after pills more accessible, but by removing the financial strain on pregnant women, who are much more likely to carry their babies to term if they don't face astronomical health care bills doing so, and can be assured of healthcare for their children after they are born.
It's true that we need to catechize people correctly and spread the faith, but meanwhile, we can reduce the number of abortions by expanding and improving Medicare.

Viki63 · #15 Jun 17, '12, 1:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

Let's apply some economic theory here.

One of the purposes of universal healthcare is to allow everyone to more freely access a doctor. Lower the cost, you increase the participation. More patients for the same doctors.

I do not believe that the bill provides a single additional doctor, nurse, technician, hospital or clinic.

Rationing of healthcare must follow. Waiting times will increase.

You are forgetting that if we dump health insurance companies, who do not add anything at all to healthcare, we cut out costs of advertisement, administration, etc - estimated to be one-third of healthcare costs.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in the U.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care.