What is more "immoral": Free choice in Abortion or free choice in Health Care?

[emilynghiem]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

 

[G.T.]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

 

[g5000]

"Which is more immoral" implies both are immoral. So it looks like we have an admission it would be immoral to remove the subsidies.

 

[occupied]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Yeah, same here. OP never really pulls it together. it's like asking: What is better? Applesauce or bicycles?

 

[PratchettFan]

I would say they equally have a total lack of immorality.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

Killing your own baby is immoral.

Picking one HMO instead of another HMO isn't a moral decision at all.

 

[hadit]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

 

[hadit]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

Killing your own baby is immoral.

Picking one HMO instead of another HMO isn't a moral decision at all.

Add to that the "gendercide" that's taking place world-wide as a result of abortion on demand at any time for any reason, and you have a problem.

 

[g5000]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

 

[2aguy]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

Abortion except for the life of the mother is immoral.......

 

[SwimExpert]

Neither.

 

[g5000]

The SC isn't supposed to rule on a law's "morality". It's supposed to rule on a law's constitutionality. Since the law in question explicitly FORBIDS the subsidies, there's really no case to be made for keeping them. Republican lawmakers have already put together means to continue helping those impacted should the subsidies be struck, but the president refused to allow them.

Please quote the provision in the law which explicitly forbids the subsidies.

Thanks.

Abortion except for the life of the mother is immoral.......

Um. Non sequitur! Hello?

I asked the parrot to support his claim the subsidies are explicitly forbidden in the law.

 

[Sonny Clark]

California official Supreme Court risks apos horrible moral precedent apos on Obamacare - LA Times

According to this article, the head of the ACA Federal Exchange in CA denounces potential court strikes against subsidies as "immoral":

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California and a former Obama administration official, said a court ruling against the Affordable Care Act "signals that subsidies don't matter."

What is more "immoral" -- the Supreme Court striking down federal subsidies on health care,
or the Supreme Court striking down bans on abortion which opens the door to "legalized murder".

It seems clearly biased to me that, on one hand, prochoice politics doesn't take into account the consequences of removing federal restrictions and bans on abortion,
but then "yells and screams" about removing federal requirements on health care choices
that are seen as depriving people of rights. Well what about the rights and protections deprived
when the choice of abortion is left to individuals? What is so much more critical about the
choice of health care being left to the individual instead of forced through federal govt?

Why decry one and totally ignore the other?

Are you this biased, that you would yell and scream about MANDATING funding for health care through govt,
to the point of depriving citizens of freedom to "fund their own choices in health care" while deregulating the choice of abortion, removing all restrictions regulations or penalties, regardless of the consequences.

Why penalize citizens for not buying insurance and "wanting another choice besides federal mandates"
but refuse ANY penalty on the choice of ABORTION.

Which is more "immoral" -- free choice of abortion or free choice in paying for health care?

Two entirely different animals. Two entirely different issues, totally unrelated. In some cases, abortion is a moral issue, but we can't throw a blanket over the issue.
On the other hand, health care is a necessity, a human need. Yes, it's a humane and moral issue when we speak of health care as necessity, but more so a humane issue than a moral issue.
In addition, there are cases where abortions are a health care issue, and the life of the mother hinges on the decision to abort the baby. And, in some cases, the well-being of the baby becomes an issue as well.
While abortion is a case by case issue, or should be, health care is a much needed necessity across the board. Moral implications and considerations should come after health issues are addressed first.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Yeah, same here. OP never really pulls it together. it's like asking: What is better? Applesauce or bicycles?

And the answer is tennis rackets.


Abortion IS health care.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I find them both equally repugnant. One is murder, the other extortion. Everyone in this country had healthcare before this unsustainable Obamacare tax was imposed. Either through private insurance, or medicare.

 

[2aguy]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Yeah, same here. OP never really pulls it together. it's like asking: What is better? Applesauce or bicycles?

And the answer is tennis rackets.


Abortion IS health care.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life......no way to sugar coat it.....try as you guys might to hide it from your conscience.....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I find them both equally repugnant. One is murder, the other extortion. Everyone in this country had healthcare before this unsustainable Obamacare tax was imposed. Either through private insurance, or medicare.

"Either through private insurance, or medicare."

You're kidding right?

No, "everyone in this country" did not have health care before ObamaCare and many still do not.

However, I do agree that INSURANCE of all types BORDERS on "extortion". Its a necessary evil.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Really poorly worded so im not even sure how to answer

Yeah, same here. OP never really pulls it together. it's like asking: What is better? Applesauce or bicycles?

And the answer is tennis rackets.


Abortion IS health care.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life......no way to sugar coat it.....try as you guys might to hide it from your conscience.....

Even if you believe that, its still health care.

BUT, if you want to go off on an anti-abortion rant, start a new thread. Don't try to derail this one.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I find them both equally repugnant. One is murder, the other extortion. Everyone in this country had healthcare before this unsustainable Obamacare tax was imposed. Either through private insurance, or medicare.

"Either through private insurance, or medicare."

You're kidding right?

No, "everyone in this country" did not have health care before ObamaCare and many still do not.

However, I do agree that INSURANCE of all types BORDERS on "extortion". Its a necessary evil.

If you didn't have money for insurance, you got a green card. Everyone of my youth group kids had one. No emergency room was allowed to turn a person away, and Obama wasn't sucking his tax right out of your paycheck.

A tax by the way that will be on it's way to those in the Pacific Trade locale. Obama is helping himself to 950 million dollars of the medicare fund to send off to the Pacific Trade deal. There is no "trade". It is a redistribution of wealth. NOW the poor will have no healthcare because Obama isn't done with this country yet, and Hitlery is poised to take up his slack. It's a global thing. We are the ATM.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I find them both equally repugnant. One is murder, the other extortion. Everyone in this country had healthcare before this unsustainable Obamacare tax was imposed. Either through private insurance, or medicare.

"Either through private insurance, or medicare."

You're kidding right?

No, "everyone in this country" did not have health care before ObamaCare and many still do not.

However, I do agree that INSURANCE of all types BORDERS on "extortion". Its a necessary evil.

If you didn't have money for insurance, you got a green card. Everyone of my youth group kids had one. No emergency room was allowed to turn a person away, and Obama wasn't sucking his tax right out of your paycheck.

A tax by the way that will be on it's way to those in the Pacific Trade locale. Obama is helping himself to 950 million dollars of the medicare fund to send off to the Pacific Trade deal. There is no "trade". It is a redistribution of wealth. NOW the poor will have no healthcare because Obama isn't done with this country yet, and Hitlery is poised to take up his slack. It's a global thing. We are the ATM.

So you were an illegal alien? Are you aware that Ronnie Ray-Gun's Socialist EMTALA was "sucking tax right out of your paycheck"? You were forced to pay for that.

To an extent, you are correct about ERs not turning people away BUT they were not required to do more than immediate care and send you to your doctor - or, as the GOP prefers, home to die.

EMTALA cost a lot more in taxes in free health care than ObamaCare. Unlike ObamaCare, EMTALA did guarantee both abortions and live births to illegals. Illegals cannot buy ObamaCare.

Open your mind and educate yourself.