Nothing you wrote here shows an inconsistency in people who don't feel that their tax payer money should pay for abortions or for health care. Whether a person is treated at a hospital before or after it is determined they can pay has nothing to do with whether they receive tax money or not. I'm all in agreement on the problems with this country's health care systems, but that is a separate issue on what some individuals feel tax raised monies should be spent on.
Those in need of serious (and expensive) aid (such as I mentioned) are treated. They aren't given financial forms to fill out so that payment may be assured. Plus, hospitals are not going to stand by while someone in the waiting room dies because it isn't verified whether they can pay. Healthcare comes first. Our ridiculous payment methods come second, often leaving the hospital unpaid or minimally paid. The taxes come to hospitals in part because hospitals today are struggling and get tax dollars so they can continue. Expensive insurance and hospital bills come in part from hospitals defraying the cost of those who receive services for which they can't pay. Abortions come when treatment options for the woman don't allow for the continuation of a pregnancy, and the woman chooses to be treated. This is a medical decision made by analysis and decision making by a doctor and patient. Also, I'd point out that Canada has NO laws against pregnancy and abortions are part of their healthcare that everyone gets. They have fewer abortions per pregnancy than does the US.
I don't know if you are not really reading what I wrote, and making an inadvertent strawman, or doing so deliberately. So let's start at the beginning. Both Bowerbird's and my comments are on what some individual people want tax payer money to go for or not go for. What the hospitals are or are not doing in the way of healthcare, and when they are seeking the payment for their services have nothing to do with the desires of individuals as to what they want tax payer money to go for and not go for. My comment was that someone who did want tax payer money to go for abortions and also didn't want tax payer money to go for health care are consistent in their desires as to what they don't want tax payer money going for. That would be opposed to wanting tax payer money going for one, but not the other, which would be inconsistent. How does what you wrote in posts 25 and 27 relate to what such individuals want with regards to how tax payer money is spent?
As far as I know, tax payer money goes to hospitals to defray the deficit they are running. Tax payer dollars also go to pay down the cost of insurance for those without the income to allow for buying health insurance. In the past, those who want to use funding stress on low income women to force people to not get abortions have put pressure on removing abortion care from healthcare insurance. So with such insurance requirements, now besides these draconian Republican laws dictating the healthcare of women who need abortions, we also have healthcare plans that also dictate whether an abortion is necessary for a woman's healthcare. Can you correct me on this?
Which has nothing to do with what a person wants said money going to. Let me remind you what Bowerbird and I were responding to. It doesn't matter what it actually currently is going to. We are responding to what a person wants it to go to. Bowerbird asked AARguy if he had rather his tax money go to non-abortion healthcare that resulted from not getting an abortion, and I noted that there are some who would not want tax money to go to any health care and that such people are rather consistent in that view, even if I don't agree with the view. No need to since you are not talking about what Bowerbird and I were responding to. So far every one of your posts to me since 25 has been a strawman argument.
