When insurance companies are required to roll into coverage. Socialism is when dems just want to give the money away.
Sometimes. Veterans being allowed out of the system to get health care. Right to try. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to regulate something. Since dems have produced and continue to produce a mountain of costly regulations, you should have no trouble for this as it is apparently a bipartisan situation with the difference in how to implement.
There's nothing he could say that would stop you from voting for the fraudulent Camela, but there are some women out there who are undecided and open-minded.
If health insurance plans are required to have that coverage, then I would agree with it. The cost of that would be reflected in the insurance rates.
From my Economics coloring book, I think you drew the line from economic system in column A to the wrong definition in column B.
This would be prohibitively expensive for many employers. They would have to pull other procedures, treatments, drugs and/or diagnostics from their formularies and they would have to limit the number of IVF treatments per employee. Another problem with IVF is the likelihood of a multiple gestation pregnancy which results in a much more complicated and expensive pregnancy through labor and delivery, especially in a post-Roe world. Selective reduction is often medically necessary when there are more than two gestating embryos. There's now shortage of Fetal and Maternal Medicine specialists in states with the most restrictive abortion laws. In some cases, the states' medical schools are dropping Fetal and Maternal Medicine programs from their curriculum.
sez the open minded poster who's only pos. is if Trump sez it, it's brilliant & totally not radical communism which is exactly how EWE & your folk would label it if dems proposed it. I guess open minded is a euphemism for zero principles
Was at a home Gator baseball game once when I noticed a near constant stream of people many with babies and young children going up to another fan hugging and chatting with him briefly. Didn’t look familiar to me to be getting such a rock star welcome but a friend who had a child via IVF told me he was one of the IVF specialists at Shands.
Yes - the multigestational issues of IVF are what made me so confused here. I thought he was all in against it when I first read the title. This should go against a large portion of his base, but I imagine they'll just follow along. The rationalizing will be interesting to see.
And how would he reconcile that position with his position that the federal government should defer to the states on issues of human reproduction considering that at least one state (Alabama) and probably others have taken the position that standard IVF procedures which may involve the disposal of embryos constitutes the killing of human beings under their "life begins at conception" doctrine?
The tab would be $8 billion a year. (ie less than one-tenth of what we sent Ukraine) Let the faux outrage rain down!!
Evangelical voters, you hear what Trump is saying? He wants more abortions in Florida and now he wants to pay people kill lots and lots of tiny fetuses. I don't see how you can vote for this guy.
I wonder if Trump knows his running mate voted against keeping IVF legal as recently as last July. J.D. Vance’s ‘worrisome’ anti-IVF stance
