Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sola Veritas
Post-RomneyCare, the state forces every Massachusetts taxpayer to fund every abortion performed on any Massachusetts resident for a very modest $50 copay. Thus, under Romney Care, the number of abortions that will be funded on the backs of the taxpaying citizens of Massachusetts will be at least 500% more than the number when he took office (approx. 25,000 versus 5,000).

Sorry, but that is wrong. A lot of people make that mistake. The Mass. Health care plan is not a single-payer government health care program. Most people still purchase their own insurance through private insurers, or have it purchased through their employers.

Only poor people who don't have employer insurance and can't afford private insurance directly would get subsidized or fully-paid for insurance. This is the same group that was covered by medicaid, and some number more getting subsidies, some who might have been covered under programs like SCHIP or other state programs.

So the number of people who actually get money from the government to pay for part or all of their insurance will be larger than the medicaid number, but much smaller than the total number of insured.

That's the first mistake.

The second mistake is assuming that only medicaid poor got abortions paid for by the government. In fact, there were also poor people who did not go under medicaid but who did not have insurance and still obtained abortions, through free clinics or other sources that receive indirect or direct funding under programs financed by the state. Planned Parenthood gets a lot of money from the state,for example, a small part of which does help fund abortions for people who don't otherwise get covered by medicaid.

The Mass. Health care plan was meant to eliminate this form of government funding which is hard to control.

And in all cases, the medical insurance was required to cover abortions, something Romney had no say over. There is no evidence Romney wanted to fund general abortions.

However, I would guess (it's my own guess) that since Romney supports abortion to save a mother's life, that he would probably support government health insurance COVERING such a procedure.

As I said many times when Thompson did his hit pieces on the "$50 abortion", THompson supported abortion for rape, incest, and to save the mother's life, and I couldn't imagine he would deny abortions for those cases to poor people by eliminating the coverage from their insurance.

I don't support rape and incest exceptions. I do support life-of-the-mother exceptions. But I've supported candidates who support rape-and-incest exceptions, because at this time the fight is over Roe, not WHAT restrictions will be pushed post-Roe.

41 posted on 01/27/2008 6:01:01 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

Chuck, I will take Brice’s understanding of this over yours. Romney compromized on abortion, that is something Huckabee NEVER did. His apologists can attempt to spin it, but that dog don’t hunt.


43 posted on 01/27/2008 6:12:09 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson