California Governor Rejects Trump's Effort to Cut Off Funding over Abortion

[AzogtheDefiler]

It’s Democrat population control:

More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost 4 times that of White women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States.

 

[OldLady]

Like obesity? Smoking? Drug abuse? Those are covered.

Huh? I did not know that "smoking" is a covered condition, nor obesity for that matter. When it comes to those people can still identify what is and is not a disease.

I have no problem if someone wants to make a dumb policy. What is problematic is making it a law that any insurance has to include the nonsense. This is anti-American.

You know what I was getting at. Smoking and obesity cause known health problems which are ALL covered by insurance.

No one is lobbying to make it illegal to have higher fees for smokers.

How a smoker can buy health insurance

"One of the biggest myths in personal finance is that smokers can't get health insurance. Contrary to popular belief, health insurance companies do offer coverage to smokers albeit with different terms and conditions as compared to non-smokers. Do keep in mind that being a smoker may force you to avail health insurance at a higher premium. However, this must not deter you from availing health insurance as smokers are more prone to lifestyle diseases than non-smokers."

They pay for their way. So higher fees for those with many sexual encounters then?

If you want to pay for someone else's abortion you did not even get to have sex with go ahead cuck. Not everyone is made out of soy.

Procreation being one of our more fundamental and primitive drives, you will not find many who do not engage in sexual encounters. It doesn't take "many" to get pregnant. You're being downright silly, imo. You don't want to pay for abortions. Just say it. Tough toenails for you, since it is a legal medical procedure in the United States and yes since half the population is continually at risk of pregnancy, it has a valid reason for being covered. You guys can make all the judgments you want about women getting pregnant; pretty convenient that you will never have to worry about that.

Not everyone is a slut like... all the people you know?

We don't want to pay for your shit. It is completely anti-American to make it illegal for you to pay for your own shit.

Ahhhh......here we go. Now I'm a slut?
Enough said.

 

[Norman]

Huh? I did not know that "smoking" is a covered condition, nor obesity for that matter. When it comes to those people can still identify what is and is not a disease.

I have no problem if someone wants to make a dumb policy. What is problematic is making it a law that any insurance has to include the nonsense. This is anti-American.

You know what I was getting at. Smoking and obesity cause known health problems which are ALL covered by insurance.

No one is lobbying to make it illegal to have higher fees for smokers.

How a smoker can buy health insurance

"One of the biggest myths in personal finance is that smokers can't get health insurance. Contrary to popular belief, health insurance companies do offer coverage to smokers albeit with different terms and conditions as compared to non-smokers. Do keep in mind that being a smoker may force you to avail health insurance at a higher premium. However, this must not deter you from availing health insurance as smokers are more prone to lifestyle diseases than non-smokers."

They pay for their way. So higher fees for those with many sexual encounters then?

If you want to pay for someone else's abortion you did not even get to have sex with go ahead cuck. Not everyone is made out of soy.

Procreation being one of our more fundamental and primitive drives, you will not find many who do not engage in sexual encounters. It doesn't take "many" to get pregnant. You're being downright silly, imo. You don't want to pay for abortions. Just say it. Tough toenails for you, since it is a legal medical procedure in the United States and yes since half the population is continually at risk of pregnancy, it has a valid reason for being covered. You guys can make all the judgments you want about women getting pregnant; pretty convenient that you will never have to worry about that.

Not everyone is a slut like... all the people you know?

We don't want to pay for your shit. It is completely anti-American to make it illegal for you to pay for your own shit.

Ahhhh......here we go. Now I'm a slut?
Enough said.

If you need weekly abortions paid for by strangers... you most likely are a slut.

 

[Care4all]

That's ridiculous, getting pregnant is not a disease.

Of course, a pregnancy is not a disease. However, the artificial killing of the fetus causes extreme pain to the victim child being aborted very early in the first trimester, and it's on tape every time they videotape an abortion, the baby frantically tries to escape his torturer's killing equipment.

I think I will skip paying for this as fun as it sounds.

Let leftist lunatics be irresponsible on their own dime.

FYI
It costs less for insurers to cover abortion than to cover the costs of pregnancy and labor and delivery....

money is not a factor or issue for the insurance company on this.... many, if not all insurers were covering abortions on their own accord on the policies they provided before Obama care... it saves the Insurer money.

This is a political and ethical argument, not a money one....

Guess what costs even less?

The ethical argument was already made. I am not going to pay for someone else's mistakes. My body, my wallet.

So if it's not an issue, why does it need to be illegal to not cover hoes abortions?

as I said, YOU are NOT paying anything extra for the coverage, you are likely paying LESS for your policy BECAUSE they cover it.

 

[Norman]

That's ridiculous, getting pregnant is not a disease.

Of course, a pregnancy is not a disease. However, the artificial killing of the fetus causes extreme pain to the victim child being aborted very early in the first trimester, and it's on tape every time they videotape an abortion, the baby frantically tries to escape his torturer's killing equipment.

I think I will skip paying for this as fun as it sounds.

Let leftist lunatics be irresponsible on their own dime.

FYI
It costs less for insurers to cover abortion than to cover the costs of pregnancy and labor and delivery....

money is not a factor or issue for the insurance company on this.... many, if not all insurers were covering abortions on their own accord on the policies they provided before Obama care... it saves the Insurer money.

This is a political and ethical argument, not a money one....

Guess what costs even less?

The ethical argument was already made. I am not going to pay for someone else's mistakes. My body, my wallet.

So if it's not an issue, why does it need to be illegal to not cover hoes abortions?

as I said, YOU are NOT paying anything extra for the coverage, you are likely paying LESS for your policy BECAUSE they cover it.

That's nonsense. If they would not cover it the people would pay it out of pocket. There is no way of preventing these folks from killing babies. The law is completely anti-American.

They can have abortions on their own dime. How many children have you cared for by aborting them Care?

 

[Care4all]

The new rule by Trump's HHS costs insurers a half a billion dollars more the first year then $250 million a year there after just in the processing of the new rule...

ALL of those costs WILL RAISE your insurance costs in the long run...

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20191223.862619/full/

On December 20, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule, accompanied by a press release and fact sheet, on exchange program integrity. The final rule is mostly technical in nature with the exception of changes to the way that insurers must bill and consumers must pay for certain abortion services in qualified health plans (QHPs) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Under the rule, insurers must send—and consumers must pay—two entirely separate monthly bills for the amount of the premium attributable to certain abortion services and the amount of the premium for all other services. Although HHS made some slight adjustments relative to the proposed rule, the final rule will still generate consumer confusion and significantly burden insurers, exchanges, and consumers.

HHS acknowledges as much and significantly increased its burden estimates from the proposed rule. Overall, HHS estimates that the new policy will result in costs to insurers, the exchanges, and consumers of about $546.1 million in 2020, $232.1 million in 2021, $230.7 million in 2022, and $229.3 million annually in 2023 and onwards. Given the burden on insurers, commenters raised concerns that the rule is designed to discourage insurers from covering certain abortion services altogether, even though doing so is clearly allowed under the ACA.

The policy could also result in coverage losses, since consumers who do not understand the need to pay both bills could have their coverage terminated for failing to pay their premium. HHS suggests that further rulemaking may be needed to address the risk that an enrollee’s coverage could be terminated. In the meantime, the agency will not enforce these requirements against an insurer that chooses to 1) establish policies to ensure that consumers do not lose their coverage due to failure to pay the separate bill; or 2) modify their benefits to allow enrollees that object to the coverage of certain abortion services for religious or moral reasons to opt out of this coverage by not paying the separate bill. Insurers may thus further need to distinguish between enrollees who inadvertently fail to pay their separate bill (but still wants QHP coverage) and those who intended to fail to pay their separate bill (because they object and do not want the coverage of certain abortion services).

The rule goes into effect within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register, but various provisions of the rule phase in at different times.

Brief Background On Program Integrity
The ACA includes a number of minimum standards that exchanges must meet to be certified, and remain certified, by HHS. Although most states use the federal exchange, 18 states and DC manage their own exchanges. This includes the 12 states and DC that have fully state-run exchanges and the six states that manage their own exchange but use the federal eligibility and enrollment platform. All exchanges must meet statutory and regulatory ACA requirements regarding program integrity and exchange oversight. Many of these requirements are outlined in Section 1313 of the ACA, which requires exchanges to maintain accurate accounts, perform annual audits, and protect against fraud and abuse.

“Exchange program integrity” generally refers to exchange and subsidy eligibility standards and related areas like income verification and reconciliation. Federal rules on program integrity are not new: HHS previously issued program integrity rules in August 2013 and October 2013 and has continued to address related issues in annual payment rules, including the 2019 payment rule.

Past program integrity efforts have included the adoption of special enrollment verification standards and new notification standards for consumers who fail to file a tax return to reconcile their advanced premium tax credits (APTCs). HHS also required the submission of additional documentation from consumers whose attested income was between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level but for whom the exchange has data to suggest that their income is below this threshold.

The Proposed Rule
The proposed rule was issued in November 2018. HHS received at least 75,000 comments by the early January 2019 deadline. Comments were filed by a range of stakeholders, including insurers, state-based exchanges, state insurance regulators, and consumer advocacy organizations. Most of these comments focused on the rule’s provisions regarding separate bills and payments for certain abortion services, discussed in more detail below.


Nearly all commenters objected to the proposal, raising concerns about high implementation costs, consumer confusion and frustration, reduced access to care, and coverage losses. Separate transactions go against industry practice. Thus, the proposed rule would require significant changes to insurer operations and administrative processes. In light of this, many commenters noted that HHS severely underestimated the proposed rule’s burden on insurers and state-based exchanges. Commenters also raised concerns about higher premiums as a result of the rule.

 

[Care4all]

Of course, a pregnancy is not a disease. However, the artificial killing of the fetus causes extreme pain to the victim child being aborted very early in the first trimester, and it's on tape every time they videotape an abortion, the baby frantically tries to escape his torturer's killing equipment.

I think I will skip paying for this as fun as it sounds.

Let leftist lunatics be irresponsible on their own dime.

FYI
It costs less for insurers to cover abortion than to cover the costs of pregnancy and labor and delivery....

money is not a factor or issue for the insurance company on this.... many, if not all insurers were covering abortions on their own accord on the policies they provided before Obama care... it saves the Insurer money.

This is a political and ethical argument, not a money one....

Guess what costs even less?

The ethical argument was already made. I am not going to pay for someone else's mistakes. My body, my wallet.

So if it's not an issue, why does it need to be illegal to not cover hoes abortions?

as I said, YOU are NOT paying anything extra for the coverage, you are likely paying LESS for your policy BECAUSE they cover it.

That's nonsense. If they would not cover it the people would pay it out of pocket. There is no way of preventing these folks from killing babies. The law is completely anti-American.

They can have abortions on their own dime. How many children have you cared for by aborting them Care?

i'm not arguing the morality or ethical positions on abortion.

my argument with you, is that it does not cost YOU more money for your insurance premium if the insurer covers abortion, and that this argument of yours of paying for someone elses abortion is simply not a factor.

Argue the right and wrong of it based on science or morality, but your money argument truly has no part in it.

 

[Norman]

I think I will skip paying for this as fun as it sounds.

Let leftist lunatics be irresponsible on their own dime.

FYI
It costs less for insurers to cover abortion than to cover the costs of pregnancy and labor and delivery....

money is not a factor or issue for the insurance company on this.... many, if not all insurers were covering abortions on their own accord on the policies they provided before Obama care... it saves the Insurer money.

This is a political and ethical argument, not a money one....

Guess what costs even less?

The ethical argument was already made. I am not going to pay for someone else's mistakes. My body, my wallet.

So if it's not an issue, why does it need to be illegal to not cover hoes abortions?

as I said, YOU are NOT paying anything extra for the coverage, you are likely paying LESS for your policy BECAUSE they cover it.

That's nonsense. If they would not cover it the people would pay it out of pocket. There is no way of preventing these folks from killing babies. The law is completely anti-American.

They can have abortions on their own dime. How many children have you cared for by aborting them Care?

i'm not arguing the morality or ethical positions on abortion.

my argument with you, is that it does not cost YOU more money for your insurance premium if the insurer covers abortion, and that this argument of yours of paying for someone elses abortion is simply not a factor.

Argue the right and wrong of it based on science or morality, but money truly has no part in it.

You are wrong.

Paying for someone's abortion costs me less than them paying for it themselves.

How many abortions have I had to pay for Care for all?

 

[BrokeLoser]

It’s Democrat population control:

More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost 4 times that of White women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States.

Yes.
And that’s exactly why filthy Mexicrats are such proponents of baby killing. It is disgusting Leftist low-down fucks and ignorant, illiterate minorities whom use abortion as their contraceptive.
This isn’t even debatable...the data is everywhere.

 

[beautress]

It’s Democrat population control:

More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973. In the United States, the abortion rate for Black women is almost 4 times that of White women. On average, 900 Black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African Americans in the United States.

Last year America passed a goalpost on abortion. More babies were aborted than born. The year before, Abortion and live births were equal.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

That's ridiculous, getting pregnant is not a disease.

Of course, a pregnancy is not a disease. However, the artificial killing of the fetus causes extreme pain to the victim child being aborted very early in the first trimester, and it's on tape every time they videotape an abortion, the baby frantically tries to escape his torturer's killing equipment.

I think I will skip paying for this as fun as it sounds.

Let leftist lunatics be irresponsible on their own dime.

That's another reason why I strongly disapprove of sex education at extremely young ages. Kids learn from older siblings who learned how to have sex at school that it's fun, so that's why we're having younger and younger mothers having babies. There was some blurb in the news in the last few days about an 11-year old giving birth to a baby, and the authorities were sure interested in who raped her, since having sex with a minor is considered rape.

Aren't they teaching anal sex by 7 years old now?

At least it doesn't lead to kids...

No, but just look at all the little turd babies all over San Francisco ...

 

[Norman]

That's ridiculous, getting pregnant is not a disease.

Of course, a pregnancy is not a disease. However, the artificial killing of the fetus causes extreme pain to the victim child being aborted very early in the first trimester, and it's on tape every time they videotape an abortion, the baby frantically tries to escape his torturer's killing equipment.

I think I will skip paying for this as fun as it sounds.

Let leftist lunatics be irresponsible on their own dime.

That's another reason why I strongly disapprove of sex education at extremely young ages. Kids learn from older siblings who learned how to have sex at school that it's fun, so that's why we're having younger and younger mothers having babies. There was some blurb in the news in the last few days about an 11-year old giving birth to a baby, and the authorities were sure interested in who raped her, since having sex with a minor is considered rape.

Aren't they teaching anal sex by 7 years old now?

At least it doesn't lead to kids...

No, but just look at all the little turd babies all over San Francisco ...

Do not dare me on whether this happens before or after.

I mean if it's anything like the regular way...