re: #686 NukeAtomrod

Sal, under a free market health care system you can choose to pay into an HMO that has abortion benefits or one that does not. Under a public health care system, the government chooses what services your tax money pays for. Surely, even you can understand that some people want the choice not to pay for other peoples’ abortions (or botox, liposuction, breast implants, penis extensions, sex-change operations, etc.)

If health insurance remains private, there is no conflict. As soon as your tax money starts paying for a public system, you have every right to object to what it’s being spent on.

You’re not paying for OTHER PEOPLES’ coverage; you’re only paying for your own. Of course, if all the money goes in the same pot and is disbursed from there, those who need less health care services are de facto subsidizing those who need more. But that very volume provides clout that allows for negotiation of lower costs for patients - which is why physicians, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies bitch and moan about it.

A public plan also doesn’t have to make a profit, as private health insurance does, big time - which is why the health insurance industry hates the idea; they can be undercut.

And I don’t imagine the legal industry is too enthused about having to sue a public program instead of privates citizens. Nor would physician liability insurers be thrilled at the prospect of doctors providing contracted services to such patients being more insulated from personal liability, although the prospect of having to shell out less in liability insurance might reduce the sting that doctors might feel at having to accept less compensation for services to patients who were publicly insured.