Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually what this is is that anyone who tries to buy a private option for an abortion will no longer be covered by any form of the public option (if they were on it).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
So I was reading again today about the anti-abortion amendment being included in the health care plan.

Okay, so part of the anti-abortion amendment is understandable, it's in line with pre-existing restrictions on no government funding for abortions. Which might be a good thing, because I don't really trust the government being able to make that judgment who to deny and who not to.

The part that has people annoyed is that there's a measure that private insurance companies can no longer offer abortion procedures in their basic package. It has to be an add on package, and of course, it also means you have to anticipate accidental pregnancy, which is kind of dumb.

EDIT: I looked at a different source, and it looks like I misunderstood this. Actually what this is is that anyone who tries to buy a private option for an abortion will no longer be covered by any form of the public option (if they were on it).

So obviously, there's people not going to be able to afford the procedure. Probably poorer people, which in my mind, means the people the powers that be would consider the labor force. More laborers, okay, makes some sense.

But I also think this might be an effort to, either by having kids or by having the procedure, to make people in this socio-economic bracket POORER. I think perhaps there is no longer power in numbers in the way our system is set up, but rather it's only in money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
So I was reading again today about the anti-abortion amendment being included in the health care plan.

Okay, so part of the anti-abortion amendment is understandable, it's in line with pre-existing restrictions on no government funding for abortions. Which might be a good thing, because I don't really trust the government being able to make that judgment who to deny and who not to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's what I got.

From what it sounds like to me, you can buy a private option and still qualify for the public option, UNLESS it's an option that includes abortion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
So I was reading again today about the anti-abortion amendment being included in the health care plan.

Okay, so part of the anti-abortion amendment is understandable, it's in line with pre-existing restrictions on no government funding for abortions. Which might be a good thing, because I don't really trust the government being able to make that judgment who to deny and who not to.

---

Doesn't that lack of funding mean that there's no judgment, just that NOBODY GETS ANY?

Or doesn't this just move us back to 1961, when affluent women could go to Sweden, or somewhere abortion was legal and safe; and poor women either had babies or died at the hands of butchers with coat hangers?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think the most worrisome problem I can see is if the abortion is an emergency procedure because of a danger to the health of the mother, and that after having the abortion, if the health problems persist, the women might be denied public option coverage for basic medical care. That's the worst case scenario I can see here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

If adult women require insurance to pay for an abortion, then the effect of this is that women who get on the public option plan would probably not be able to get an abortion, not and still keep their health insurance coverage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
They'd be performed, but even if you undergo an emergency procedure, you can still get collection agencies knocking on your door if you don't have insurance and can't afford it. Ask my friend Drago there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
So I was reading again today about the anti-abortion amendment being included in the health care plan.

Okay, so part of the anti-abortion amendment is understandable, it's in line with pre-existing restrictions on no government funding for abortions. Which might be a good thing, because I don't really trust the government being able to make that judgment who to deny and who not to.

The part that has people annoyed is that there's a measure that private insurance companies can no longer offer abortion procedures in their basic package. It has to be an add on package, and of course, it also means you have to anticipate accidental pregnancy, which is kind of dumb.

EDIT: I looked at a different source, and it looks like I misunderstood this. Actually what this is is that anyone who tries to buy a private option for an abortion will no longer be covered by any form of the public option (if they were on it).

So obviously, there's people not going to be able to afford the procedure. Probably poorer people, which in my mind, means the people the powers that be would consider the labor force. More laborers, okay, makes some sense.

But I also think this might be an effort to, either by having kids or by having the procedure, to make people in this socio-economic bracket POORER. I think perhaps there is no longer power in numbers in the way our system is set up, but rather it's only in money.

---

Well that makes sense. The eugenics masterminds who created and funded Planned Parenthood want to keep the poor poor, and thus excluded from becoming the elite like the racist goons who started PP. These wealthy heavily lobby Congress, and the liberals are their most greedy recipients.

Maybe you are trying to make sense of the non-sensical, instead of remembering the real reason and purpose of Planned Parenthood and the Liberal Agenda.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure. Do women's clinics and abortions from planned parenthood cost money? I mean, teenagers go to these clinics, right? Most of them probably don't have insurance.

But maybe that's just a deal they offer for kids younger then eighteen, because otherwise I can't imagine how these places might stay in business.

The thing is, I said before that I read elsewhere there might be an impact on the insurance options for a private package covering an abortion.

---

Quote:

---

But that wouldn't be the same as losing your public option insurance over it, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

But that wouldn't be the same as losing your public option insurance over it, right?

---

Probably depends on who's handling your case, I'd imagine.

In the letter of the law, no, it wouldn't be the same. In interpretation...?

---

Quote:

---

I must've missed where in the "eugenics master plan" it states that you have to get the poor and uneducated to breed MORE, and the rich and educated to breed LESS.

What exactly does the "master race" you're envisioning look like?

And what IS "the real reason" behind Planned Parenthood and "the Liberal Agenda", O Oracle? You make it sound like you think giving women a voice in whether or not they're treated by men as nothing more than breeding stock is a BAD thing.

---

Quote:

---

I don't get it.

Paying for an abortion procedure outside of the oublic plan, but still having the public plan for everything else doesn't strike me as at all the same as losing your public option insurance completely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Or maybe I should go read the darn thing on thomas.gov

---

Quote:

---

So, are you *really* going to intentionally load your bill with a suicide bomb by including the introduction of a new policy that definitively says that the US supports abortion? It would be political suicide for any republican and a number of democrats to vote *for* any such measure.

---

Quote:

---

I believe I heard there was a contingency if it endangers the mother's health, but I'm not sure.

---

Quote:

---

not the friggin' Blue Dogs...I no longer consider them Dems!

---

Quote:

---

This situation has gotten completely insane...we're not gonna get a bill, unless we get one without a public option and WITH the individual mandate...in other words, an insurance company gimme.

---

Quote:

---

My only consolation is that with our current administration and our congress so utterly incompetent and ineffective, if they can't pass anything, then they also can't make anything worse.

Except Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

And Pakistan (also the deficit) but check this out. The CIA-installed leaders of Pakistan, who are our patsies in this war, until their military overthrows them in a coup, which is inevitable:

(Bear in mind that the term "election" in Pakistan is a great deal less meaningful than in Iran, as Pakistan also has a communist Chairman position which has far more power than the Ayatollah, and whereas the Ayatollah is elected by clerics, who in turn are elected, the Chairman is a hereditary position.)

But here, check this out: The man who shares power with the Bhutto family (who make the Corleones look like rank amateurs):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaz_Sharif

It really gives one perspective on the whole concept of "corruption," maybe the US isn't ranking as high on this scale globally as one might have thought.

Quote:

---

I didn't think that the amendment represented a change in policy, but rather that it was there to ensure no change in policy, which is the only way it's ever going to pass.

---

Quote:

---

God, I'm glad to see some people on the left have had it with the blue dogs. The BD are a political infection in the democratic party like the neocons are to the GOP. I'm afraid that this happened from too much "better dead than red" voting in congressional districts, and by red I of course mean republican.

We have a Blue Dog disaster in the 24th. The 22nd and 29th that border us on the south have actual liberals. My sisters both live in the 29th, and their democrat opposed the bill for being too much of a hand out to the insurance companies, and potentially costing low income families more money than current healthcare policy. But I digress.

I'm just curious. Take a straight line pro-war pro-agenda blue dog like ours, what would a republican challenger have to be to potentially win your vote. This is a serious question. I mean, I get that pro-gay marriage or pro-choice would be pluses, but you're not going to get a lot of that from our BD Dem, so I'm curious, what else might tip the scales?

---

Quote:

---

And Pakistan (also the deficit) but check this out. The CIA-installed leaders of Pakistan, who are our patsies in this war, until their military overthrows them in a coup, which is inevitable:

(Bear in mind that the term "election" in Pakistan is a great deal less meaningful than in Iran, as Pakistan also has a communist Chairman position which has far more power than the Ayatollah, and whereas the Ayatollah is elected by clerics, who in turn are elected, the Chairman is a hereditary position.)

But here, check this out: The man who shares power with the Bhutto family (who make the Corleones look like rank amateurs):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaz_Sharif

It really gives one perspective on the whole concept of "corruption," maybe the US isn't ranking as high on this scale globally as one might have thought.

---