The quandary for libs

[PeacefulPartier]

Abortion is legal in this country because the SCOTUS decided that reviewing all medical records for allowed and disallowed abortions violates the right to privacy of women. In essence, the government cannot view your medical records to see if you violated the law. Ok, I can understand that logic.

So now, libs want to require everyone to be on Medicare. Obviously, the government can't cover every procedure. Once they have compiled a list of allowed and disallowed procedures and the circumstances that those procedures are allowed, they will have to confirm the patient was eligible for that procedure. To make that confirmation, the government will have to look at the patient's medical records to confirm the patient and the doctor are not committing Medicare fraud.

And there is the problem. If we make Medicare the required system for paying for medical procedures, we will be violating the right to privacy of the 14th amendment as defined in Roe v Wade. So, we would have to amend the constitution to eliminate that right and make it constitutional to ban abortions. Or we would have to abandon the medicare for all policy because it violates the 14th.

So what do you want? Medicare for all and banned abortions or legal abortions with zero chance of ever having government run health care?

[neoplacebo]

Abortion is legal in this country because the SCOTUS decided that reviewing all medical records for allowed and disallowed abortions violates the right to privacy of women. In essence, the government cannot view your medical records to see if you violated the law. Ok, I can understand that logic.

So now, libs want to require everyone to be on Medicare. Obviously, the government can't cover every procedure. Once they have compiled a list of allowed and disallowed procedures and the circumstances that those procedures are allowed, they will have to confirm the patient was eligible for that procedure. To make that confirmation, the government will have to look at the patient's medical records to confirm the patient and the doctor are not committing Medicare fraud.

And there is the problem. If we make Medicare the required system for paying for medical procedures, we will be violating the right to privacy of the 14th amendment as defined in Roe v Wade. So, we would have to amend the constitution to eliminate that right and make it constitutional to ban abortions. Or we would have to abandon the medicare for all policy because it violates the 14th.

So what do you want? Medicare for all and banned abortions or legal abortions with zero chance of ever having government run health care?

As far as I know, covered medical procedures, as well as non covered ones, are already delineated by Medicare and I don't believe Medicare will cover an abortion. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Abortions and government run health care have no relationship that I can see; and unless I am mistaken, abortions have never been covered by government health care, same with cosmetic surgery. What I am personally against is how big pharma and insurance companies have been allowed, via their big pockets, to pursue their own agenda (maximum profit) over anything else; it's why Americans pay more for medical care and drugs than any other advanced country in the world. There is currently a story in the media about the Mercer family that owns Purdue and how they secretly transferred a billion dollars to foreign bank accounts. To me, that's a conservative "quandary".

[PeacefulPartier]

As far as I know, covered medical procedures, as well as non covered ones, are already delineated by Medicare and I don't believe Medicare will cover an abortion. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Abortions and government run health care have no relationship that I can see; and unless I am mistaken, abortions have never been covered by government health care, same with cosmetic surgery. What I am personally against is how big pharma and insurance companies have been allowed, via their big pockets, to pursue their own agenda (maximum profit) over anything else; it's why Americans pay more for medical care and drugs than any other advanced country in the world. There is currently a story in the media about the Mercer family that owns Purdue and how they secretly transferred a billion dollars to foreign bank accounts. To me, that's a conservative "quandary".

If the government can't look at medical records for abortions to see if the abortion was legal or illegal, how can they still look at other procedures to see if the procedure is legal or illegal?

[neoplacebo]

As far as I know, covered medical procedures, as well as non covered ones, are already delineated by Medicare and I don't believe Medicare will cover an abortion. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Abortions and government run health care have no relationship that I can see; and unless I am mistaken, abortions have never been covered by government health care, same with cosmetic surgery. What I am personally against is how big pharma and insurance companies have been allowed, via their big pockets, to pursue their own agenda (maximum profit) over anything else; it's why Americans pay more for medical care and drugs than any other advanced country in the world. There is currently a story in the media about the Mercer family that owns Purdue and how they secretly transferred a billion dollars to foreign bank accounts. To me, that's a conservative "quandary".

If the government can't look at medical records for abortions to see if the abortion was legal or illegal, how can they still look at other procedures to see if the procedure is legal or illegal?

Roe v Wade does not mention "medical records." It only applies to pregnancy and divides a pregnancy term into three trimesters; during the first one, abortion cannot be restricted, during the second one, medical necessity comes in to play, and during the third, abortion is prohibited except in certain cases affecting the life of the mother. Where are you getting this idea that the government has to look at medical records?

[neoplacebo]

As far as I know, covered medical procedures, as well as non covered ones, are already delineated by Medicare and I don't believe Medicare will cover an abortion. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Abortions and government run health care have no relationship that I can see; and unless I am mistaken, abortions have never been covered by government health care, same with cosmetic surgery. What I am personally against is how big pharma and insurance companies have been allowed, via their big pockets, to pursue their own agenda (maximum profit) over anything else; it's why Americans pay more for medical care and drugs than any other advanced country in the world. There is currently a story in the media about the Mercer family that owns Purdue and how they secretly transferred a billion dollars to foreign bank accounts. To me, that's a conservative "quandary".

If the government can't look at medical records for abortions to see if the abortion was legal or illegal, how can they still look at other procedures to see if the procedure is legal or illegal?

I have never worked in a medical occupation or a legal one. Having said that, I expect that the government is, and has been since the inception of Medicare, "looking at medical records" in the sense that in attempts to prevent fraud, doctors must provide some sort of documentation to Medicare to receive payment for their services. This applies to heart attacks, amputations, appendicitis, or virtually anything else. How do you figure abortion falls outside any of that existing framework? I still don't see your point.

[neoplacebo]

In any Medicare for all system, I have every reason to believe that elective procedures would still not be covered by the system. Again, how is this any different from the existing situation with regard to abortion and who pays for it?

[Vrede too]

I’ll bet that you got this “quandary for libs” thing from some con site and that it’s not a “quandary” that’s ever expressed by libs. Prove me wrong?

“In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a ‘right to privacy’ that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion,” within certain trimester restrictions. It was never about protecting medical records. We have fundamental rights to privacy and autonomy, but neither has ever been absolute.

How government data is compartmentalized and protected can be addressed by law, just as it is with Medicare/Medicaid now.

The intrusion you’re describing is no different from what Big Insurance already does. Given the choice, I’d rather it be the government whose practices I can democratically influence as opposed to the unaccountable, parasitic, much MORE expensive Big Insurance.

[PeacefulPartier]

As far as I know, covered medical procedures, as well as non covered ones, are already delineated by Medicare and I don't believe Medicare will cover an abortion. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Abortions and government run health care have no relationship that I can see; and unless I am mistaken, abortions have never been covered by government health care, same with cosmetic surgery. What I am personally against is how big pharma and insurance companies have been allowed, via their big pockets, to pursue their own agenda (maximum profit) over anything else; it's why Americans pay more for medical care and drugs than any other advanced country in the world. There is currently a story in the media about the Mercer family that owns Purdue and how they secretly transferred a billion dollars to foreign bank accounts. To me, that's a conservative "quandary".

If the government can't look at medical records for abortions to see if the abortion was legal or illegal, how can they still look at other procedures to see if the procedure is legal or illegal?

Roe v Wade does not mention "medical records." It only applies to pregnancy and divides a pregnancy term into three trimesters; during the first one, abortion cannot be restricted, during the second one, medical necessity comes in to play, and during the third, abortion is prohibited except in certain cases affecting the life of the mother. Where are you getting this idea that the government has to look at medical records?

First, I have to correct myself. It wasn't the 14th amendment. It was the 9th. Bonehead mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wa ... to_privacy

With its historical survey as background, the Court introduced the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" that was intimated in earlier cases involving parental control over childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters) and reproductive autonomy with the use of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).[5] Then, "with virtually no further explanation of the privacy value",[6] the Court ruled that regardless of exactly which of its provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that generally protected a pregnant woman's decision whether or not to abort a pregnancy.[5]

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[48]

So, yes, the SCOTUS stated that the reason for a woman's decision for an abortion was covered under the right to privacy. It is a logical conclusion that that decision would be on the medical records. If there is a lack of a medical reason listed, then the abortion would be for birth control purposes. The intent of the SCOTUS was to protect the right to privacy. If you are on Medicare, SCHIP or any other program, as they currently stand, they are voluntary. If medicare for all or any other government run system is instituted, it won't be voluntary. As such, individuals won't be consenting to the violation of privacy and the government will be in violation of the Roe v Wade ruling.

[PeacefulPartier]

I’ll bet that you got this “quandary for libs” thing from some con site and that it’s not a “quandary” that’s ever expressed by libs. Prove me wrong?

What would you like me to prove wrong? Should I prove the negative by finding every single conservative website and posting all of the content to show it is my argument? Or should I prove a liberal said this is a quandary even though I never made that claim?

“In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a ‘right to privacy’ that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion,” within certain trimester restrictions. It was never about protecting medical records. We have fundamental rights to privacy and autonomy, but neither has ever been absolute.

How government data is compartmentalized and protected can be addressed by law, just as it is with Medicare/Medicaid now.

The intrusion you’re describing is no different from what Big Insurance already does. Given the choice, I’d rather it be the government whose practices I can democratically influence as opposed to the unaccountable, parasitic, much MORE expensive Big Insurance.

Big Insurance and the government are vastly different in what they can and can't do. The government's actions can serve to limit rights. As citizens, if the government takes an action it has the weight of law. If an insurance company does something, it has the weight of a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party and no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too.

[neoplacebo]

As far as I know, covered medical procedures, as well as non covered ones, are already delineated by Medicare and I don't believe Medicare will cover an abortion. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Abortions and government run health care have no relationship that I can see; and unless I am mistaken, abortions have never been covered by government health care, same with cosmetic surgery. What I am personally against is how big pharma and insurance companies have been allowed, via their big pockets, to pursue their own agenda (maximum profit) over anything else; it's why Americans pay more for medical care and drugs than any other advanced country in the world. There is currently a story in the media about the Mercer family that owns Purdue and how they secretly transferred a billion dollars to foreign bank accounts. To me, that's a conservative "quandary".

If the government can't look at medical records for abortions to see if the abortion was legal or illegal, how can they still look at other procedures to see if the procedure is legal or illegal?

Roe v Wade does not mention "medical records." It only applies to pregnancy and divides a pregnancy term into three trimesters; during the first one, abortion cannot be restricted, during the second one, medical necessity comes in to play, and during the third, abortion is prohibited except in certain cases affecting the life of the mother. Where are you getting this idea that the government has to look at medical records?

First, I have to correct myself. It wasn't the 14th amendment. It was the 9th. Bonehead mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wa ... to_privacy

With its historical survey as background, the Court introduced the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" that was intimated in earlier cases involving parental control over childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters) and reproductive autonomy with the use of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).[5] Then, "with virtually no further explanation of the privacy value",[6] the Court ruled that regardless of exactly which of its provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that generally protected a pregnant woman's decision whether or not to abort a pregnancy.[5]

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[48]

So, yes, the SCOTUS stated that the reason for a woman's decision for an abortion was covered under the right to privacy. It is a logical conclusion that that decision would be on the medical records. If there is a lack of a medical reason listed, then the abortion would be for birth control purposes. The intent of the SCOTUS was to protect the right to privacy. If you are on Medicare, SCHIP or any other program, as they currently stand, they are voluntary. If medicare for all or any other government run system is instituted, it won't be voluntary. As such, individuals won't be consenting to the violation of privacy and the government will be in violation of the Roe v Wade ruling.

The way I read it, Roe v Wade addresses a woman's right to have an abortion, a personal choice. Any "right to privacy" attendant to that is incidental at best, and no different from any other protections relating to medical records. Once again, ANY medical procedure paid for by the Medicare system is subject to review to prevent abuse of the system. Providers (doctors) are not likely to falsify or fail to provide records of procedures they perform; they would be foolish to do so and put their careers in jeopardy. And, as I noted earlier, abortion has never, and probably never will be, covered by Medicare so to my way of thinking the "privacy" issue is irrelevant.

[O Really]

I don's see that much about Medicare would change just because it covered a bunch more people. The coverage is generally similar to commercial insurance, eligibility is determined in the same manner as other insurance, and determinations of coverage are similar when there's a question. For example, some procedures might be denied as "optional" absent a specific statement of medical necessity from the attending physician. The system works well and provides a decent level of coverage. However, Medicare users can also purchase supplemental insurance from a commercial insurer to cover expenses Medicare doesn't. No reason to think that if everyone were eligible for the current Medicare plan that there wouldn't be additional optional coverage available. Nobody says that a universal healthcare plan will or should cover every single medical cost at 100%. Just that there should be accessible coverage for everybody.

[neoplacebo]

I’ll bet that you got this “quandary for libs” thing from some con site and that it’s not a “quandary” that’s ever expressed by libs. Prove me wrong?

What would you like me to prove wrong? Should I prove the negative by finding every single conservative website and posting all of the content to show it is my argument? Or should I prove a liberal said this is a quandary even though I never maid that claim?

“In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a ‘right to privacy’ that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion,” within certain trimester restrictions. It was never about protecting medical records. We have fundamental rights to privacy and autonomy, but neither has ever been absolute.

How government data is compartmentalized and protected can be addressed by law, just as it is with Medicare/Medicaid now.

The intrusion you’re describing is no different from what Big Insurance already does. Given the choice, I’d rather it be the government whose practices I can democratically influence as opposed to the unaccountable, parasitic, much MORE expensive Big Insurance.

Big Insurance and the government are vastly different in what they can and can't do. The government's actions can serve to limit rights. As citizens, if the government takes an action it has the weight of law. If an insurance company does something, it has the weight of a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party and no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too.

I fail to see how Medicare has any way to limit rights; it's only a payment facilitator, not a legal authority; same with private insurance companies. With Medicare, a patient is fully aware if a procedure is covered but with a private company, they may "change their policies" at any time for any or no reason and the patient is forced to deal one on one with a corporate entity, whereas with Medicare the patient and the provider of services are under no ambiguity regarding whether the procedure is covered, and abortions are not covered which has no bearing on medical records, right to privacy, or who pays for it because the patient pays for it. I still cannot see any "quandary" in any of it.

[PeacefulPartier]

The way I read it, Roe v Wade addresses a woman's right to have an abortion, a personal choice. Any "right to privacy" attendant to that is incidental at best, and no different from any other protections relating to medical records. Once again, ANY medical procedure paid for by the Medicare system is subject to review to prevent abuse of the system. Providers (doctors) are not likely to falsify or fail to provide records of procedures they perform; they would be foolish to do so and put their careers in jeopardy. And, as I noted earlier, abortion has never, and probably never will be, covered by Medicare so to my way of thinking the "privacy" issue is irrelevant.

Abortion is the overall topic. Within that topic are sub topics like when rights begin and privacy. Obviously, talking about all of those points when there is only one parallel would be a waste of time.

[PeacefulPartier]

I don's see that much about Medicare would change just because it covered a bunch more people. The coverage is generally similar to commercial insurance, eligibility is determined in the same manner as other insurance, and determinations of coverage are similar when there's a question. For example, some procedures might be denied as "optional" absent a specific statement of medical necessity from the attending physician. The system works well and provides a decent level of coverage. However, Medicare users can also purchase supplemental insurance from a commercial insurer to cover expenses Medicare doesn't. No reason to think that if everyone were eligible for the current Medicare plan that there wouldn't be additional optional coverage available. Nobody says that a universal healthcare plan will or should cover every single medical cost at 100%. Just that there should be accessible coverage for everybody.

That's because you are comparing the current system and I'm talking about the proposed medicare for all.

[PeacefulPartier]

I fail to see how Medicare has any way to limit rights; it's only a payment facilitator, not a legal authority; same with private insurance companies. With Medicare, a patient is fully aware if a procedure is covered but with a private company, they may "change their policies" at any time for any or no reason and the patient is forced to deal one on one with a corporate entity, whereas with Medicare the patient and the provider of services are under no ambiguity regarding whether the procedure is covered, and abortions are not covered which has no bearing on medical records, right to privacy, or who pays for it because the patient pays for it. I still cannot see any "quandary" in any of it.

The current system does not. The future medicare for all system will.

[Vrede too]

I’ll bet that you got this “quandary for libs” thing from some con site and that it’s not a “quandary” that’s ever expressed by libs. Prove me wrong?

What would you like me to prove wrong? Should I prove the negative by finding every single conservative website and posting all of the content to show it is my argument?

Not that.

Or should I prove a liberal said this is a quandary even though I never made that claim?

If you can't find any libs for whom this is an issue, it's not a real "quandary for libs". It's just your wishful thinking based on faulty logic, history and constitutional interpretation. This is no different from the classic fake "quandary" you're in if I ask when you stopped beating your spouse.

Big Insurance and the government are vastly different in what they can and can't do. The government's actions can serve to limit rights. As citizens, if the government takes an action it has the weight of law. If an insurance company does something, it has the weight of a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party and no individual must remain with a business if they choose not too.

The intrusiveness is exactly the same, all of Big Insurance does it, and everyone is a "victim" since going without insurance is not a viable option other than for slackers that expect the rest of us to pay the bills when things go bad.

[neoplacebo]

I fail to see how Medicare has any way to limit rights; it's only a payment facilitator, not a legal authority; same with private insurance companies. With Medicare, a patient is fully aware if a procedure is covered but with a private company, they may "change their policies" at any time for any or no reason and the patient is forced to deal one on one with a corporate entity, whereas with Medicare the patient and the provider of services are under no ambiguity regarding whether the procedure is covered, and abortions are not covered which has no bearing on medical records, right to privacy, or who pays for it because the patient pays for it. I still cannot see any "quandary" in any of it.

The current system does not. The future medicare for all system will.

You seem to be discounting the probable situation that "Medicare for all" would not cover abortion, just as it doesn't cover it now. I have to figure you're assuming "Medicare for all" would cover everything medical no matter what. I stand by my assertion that any such system "for all" would still not cover abortion, nose jobs, fake boobs, and anything else not medically necessary or prudent. Why do you think otherwise?

[Vrede too]

So, yes, the SCOTUS stated that the reason for a woman's decision for an abortion was covered under the right to privacy.

As we've said.

It is a logical conclusion that that decision would be on the medical records.

No, that's an entirely unsupported and invented leap of logic.

If there is a lack of a medical reason listed, then the abortion would be for birth control purposes.

Irrelevant, both are legal.

The intent of the SCOTUS was to protect the right to privacy. If you are on Medicare, SCHIP or any other program, as they currently stand, they are voluntary. If medicare for all or any other government run system is instituted, it won't be voluntary. As such, individuals won't be consenting to the violation of privacy and the government will be in violation of the Roe v Wade ruling.

Good luck with that ridiculous argument. It hasn't arisen for Medicare/Medicaid yet, is not an issue in the developed democracies, all of which get comparable care for 1/2 to 2/3 the per capita cost with single payer, won't arise in the unlikely event that we go to single payer.

If you don't like single payer or abortion, fine, but you've picked a goofy, nonstarter of a case against single payer.

[Vrede too]

You seem to be discounting the probable situation that "Medicare for all" would not cover abortion, just as it doesn't cover it now....

Excellent point. PP's handwringing is even more speculative than I thought.

[PeacefulPartier]

This is a defective analogy.

With abortion, the presumed purpose of reviewing a woman's medical records would be to confirm that an abortion was performed, to enable the government to prosecute the women (and her doctor) for it.

With routine, emergency, and specialized medical care, there is no question that the procedures performed are not legal. Not unless some idiot conservative majority in Congress passes a law that makes such things as tonsillectomies illegal.

In other words, getting medical care is not a crime, nor should it be. As such, there is no need to invoke the privacy provision as you describe.

I don't know why libs always have to resort to name calling. But, whatever.

If there is a medicare for all system, there will be restrictions on what it pays. If you go to a doctor and the doctor performs a procedure, even if it is covered, the government will look at whether or not it was covered. If it was not covered, it could be fraud. So, the government would be violating the patient's right to privacy by looking for fraud without evidence or a warrant. There will be no judicial oversight.