![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wait. They're still covering Viagra.
Sep. 10th, 2009 09:17 pmToday's attitude: I really hate children. And I loathe and detest the whole LJ/Facebook mentality where people you know tangentially are your "friends". Having a child tell me I was her best friend was really obnoxious. I looked at her and said, "No." She's actively friends with at least 6 of the other children in the group, and the one who told me last week I should have had children.
I'm still watching the podcasts from Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show, but I no longer think they are "news". The biases are extreme. Do we think we could find something that reports the news without slanting it and without presuming an equal dichotomy? Phelps is wrong, his side should never get news coverage beyond, "There are people who disagree."
If 80% of the American people think we should have health insurance available to everyone, then the debate should not be presented as equal and people who disagree should be interviewed and questioned about what their problem is. I think it is completely reasonable to be angry about being asked to pay for other people to get health insurance. I think everyone should have to buy their own, since I did; why is this suddenly a priority now that I'm doing okay for myself? But I don't think insurance should be allowed to drop people for using their insurance. I think it's reasonable to ask which kinds of poor people will be included and whether there will be restrictions on the types of care available.
Obama's speech saying that federal money will not be used for abortions really bothers me because there are medically necessary (not elective, will cause the mother to die without it) abortions that make up a huge percentage of abortions performed. Plus if there is a move to make all health care single-payer, government run, then that effectively means no abortions will be covered by insurance regardless of medical necessity. And obviously if the government is interfering in medical decisions, what's to say they're not going to regulate something else too? Like contraception.
They are already conceding the fight on abortion because of pressure from the Christian-leaning folks. But most anti-abortion crusaders think contraception is equally anathema. They also think that cancer screenings should not be covered by insurance because cervical cancer is linked to promiscuity. So I have become against single-payer health insurance because Obama has explicitly stated that I cannot receive medically necessary procedures and will likely be prevented from receiving on-going medical treatment in the future.
I am a woman, if I choose to have sex, I should not be required to pay for it with childbirth. If I am sexually assaulted, I should not be required to endure the medical risks and complications of an imposed pregnancy. But if we have single-payer health insurance, and government money cannot be used for abortions, abortions are not paid by the insurance. See? Women on Medicare do not have quite the same concerns since it requires extreme medical intervention for 65 year old women to become pregnant. I am not poor. I can pay for my own treatments above what insurance pays. And I definitely would. But how many doctors are going to have non-covered treatments available?
I think we need to look at this differently. It costs $8-10K/year for public schooling per child, for 13 years. Plus tax credits for "parenting" and deductions. Plus all the people who are poor and who get massive handouts for breeding (compared to responsible people who don't have children they can't feed). Having children is currently optional (as of yet, we have drugs and procedures that prevent them.) Why aren't we out there screaming that people shouldn't be allowed to waste government money having babies? Maybe abortions aren't part of some people's religious beliefs, but how could we ever have a system where having an unwanted child that will go hungry and never be loved is considered a "blessing"? That is wrong. ANYTHING someone does to prevent damning someone innocent to a lifetime of suffering should be preferable.
But Obama says no abortions funded with federal money.
I guess it's fine to waste money on welfare and food stamps and public schooling of children nobody wanted. Personally I'd much rather the government pay $500 for pill-based abortions than spend $150,000 (low estimate) per child.
I'm still watching the podcasts from Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show, but I no longer think they are "news". The biases are extreme. Do we think we could find something that reports the news without slanting it and without presuming an equal dichotomy? Phelps is wrong, his side should never get news coverage beyond, "There are people who disagree."
If 80% of the American people think we should have health insurance available to everyone, then the debate should not be presented as equal and people who disagree should be interviewed and questioned about what their problem is. I think it is completely reasonable to be angry about being asked to pay for other people to get health insurance. I think everyone should have to buy their own, since I did; why is this suddenly a priority now that I'm doing okay for myself? But I don't think insurance should be allowed to drop people for using their insurance. I think it's reasonable to ask which kinds of poor people will be included and whether there will be restrictions on the types of care available.
Obama's speech saying that federal money will not be used for abortions really bothers me because there are medically necessary (not elective, will cause the mother to die without it) abortions that make up a huge percentage of abortions performed. Plus if there is a move to make all health care single-payer, government run, then that effectively means no abortions will be covered by insurance regardless of medical necessity. And obviously if the government is interfering in medical decisions, what's to say they're not going to regulate something else too? Like contraception.
They are already conceding the fight on abortion because of pressure from the Christian-leaning folks. But most anti-abortion crusaders think contraception is equally anathema. They also think that cancer screenings should not be covered by insurance because cervical cancer is linked to promiscuity. So I have become against single-payer health insurance because Obama has explicitly stated that I cannot receive medically necessary procedures and will likely be prevented from receiving on-going medical treatment in the future.
I am a woman, if I choose to have sex, I should not be required to pay for it with childbirth. If I am sexually assaulted, I should not be required to endure the medical risks and complications of an imposed pregnancy. But if we have single-payer health insurance, and government money cannot be used for abortions, abortions are not paid by the insurance. See? Women on Medicare do not have quite the same concerns since it requires extreme medical intervention for 65 year old women to become pregnant. I am not poor. I can pay for my own treatments above what insurance pays. And I definitely would. But how many doctors are going to have non-covered treatments available?
I think we need to look at this differently. It costs $8-10K/year for public schooling per child, for 13 years. Plus tax credits for "parenting" and deductions. Plus all the people who are poor and who get massive handouts for breeding (compared to responsible people who don't have children they can't feed). Having children is currently optional (as of yet, we have drugs and procedures that prevent them.) Why aren't we out there screaming that people shouldn't be allowed to waste government money having babies? Maybe abortions aren't part of some people's religious beliefs, but how could we ever have a system where having an unwanted child that will go hungry and never be loved is considered a "blessing"? That is wrong. ANYTHING someone does to prevent damning someone innocent to a lifetime of suffering should be preferable.
But Obama says no abortions funded with federal money.
I guess it's fine to waste money on welfare and food stamps and public schooling of children nobody wanted. Personally I'd much rather the government pay $500 for pill-based abortions than spend $150,000 (low estimate) per child.
