REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Does this explain it?

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Friday, November 20, 2009 02:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1797
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:22 AM

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.

Link for ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_abo
rtion

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:41 AM

AGENTROUKA


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).



I must have misread this. If they try to buy private coverage for an abortion, they lose all public option health insurance??

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:48 AM

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.

Usually if you no longer qualify for something, it's taken away from you pretty promptly. Sometimes even if you DO still qualify. >_>

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:00 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Rar, that's a little upsetting. Not that I've ever had or needed such a thing, but cutting people off just because they do seems totally wrong. Guess the clinics will get some business if this wins out

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:16 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:46 AM

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:08 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



That's appalling!

How are things funded now? If a woman needs an abortion and doesn't have insurance, what are her options now? Would they, theoretically, be the same under this plan, so they are at least not even worse off?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:09 AM

BYTEMITE


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.

If it passes, if it's just what I got from the AP about public option package cut-off, then I imagine it'll have the effect I'm speculating about, but ultimately, what IS that effect? How many women pay for insurance coverage for abortions? I'm not actually sure this does make much difference, now that I think about it, but then why would the people who introduced it have introduced it?

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:11 AM

DRAGO


Oh, sure. It explains perfectly well how spite and revenge work right out in the open in DC. "Gonna outvote us, huh? Well take a look at THIS! When we randomly tack this on, you morons will never vote for it - we win!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:15 AM

BYTEMITE


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?



Well, that depends entirely on how abortion clinics work, which I pretty much don't know anything about.

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.

Women who buy private insurance anyways will probably be unaffected. After all, the public option doesn't replace private insurance. Abortions will still be available. I'm mostly just speculating that this could have negative repercussions, economically speaking, on already poor demographics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:17 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



But how would an abortion performed during an emergency procedure (presumably without much choice on the part of the mother) affect having a private plan that specifically covers abortion? Wouldn't those be performed whether the woman has insurance coverage for it or not? Either the woman got that private additional insurance or she didn't, but actual performed procedures shouldn't influence things, methinks.

Btw, does it specifiy elective abortion? Because that's the hotly contested issue, right? Not emergency procedures to save the mothers live while she may be unconscious?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:20 AM

BYTEMITE


Yeah, I'm amazed the Bill passed in the house. But it doesn't have a CHANCE in the Senate. The Blue Dogs have a stronger foothold there, and even with something to appease the pro-life constituency, they wouldn't have voted for health care reform anyways. And now pro-choice Democrats may be wary about voting for it as well.

Maybe after it's defeated in the Senate they'll fix it up in committee, but I doubt it. It's probably going to die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:25 AM

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.

And it does specify elective, but see previous point. I also note that for the government and insurance companies, "elective" can be arbitrary. Like an "elective" or "experimental" surgery to remove a life-threatening brain tumor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:27 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



Well, they could get an abortion. they just wouldn't be able to have it paid by an additional private insurance. I just googled and apparently many women pay for their abortions in cash, some clinics offer payment plans, and there are, apparently, loan societies out there who forward people the money to pay.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:28 AM

AGENTROUKA


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.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


As I understand it, if you are on ANY part of the public option - if you're getting any subsidies to help pay for your insurance in any way, you absolutely cannot use that insurance to pay for any part of an abortion procedure.

I'm appalled that conservatives would support such government intrusion into their insurance, and into their private lives.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.




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.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:42 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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.



Yes, they cost money. I had to take a girlfriend (a friend, who was a girl) when I was in high school and her boyfriend knocked her up and then split. Back then it was a bit over $400 in 1970s dollars. Probably a few thousand now.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:58 AM

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...?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:09 AM

AGENTROUKA


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...?



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:12 AM

BYTEMITE


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.



The eugenics argument is one that I'm familiar with, and it's a complicated one. The answer to your first comment is that eugenics is simply social engineering of the gene pool of a population towards a specific goal. That goal may not be improving the human race, but rather controlling it. You've all heard me express my wariness of population control interests and measures before. This is one of my reasons.

That said, I don't stand in between a woman who wants or needs an abortion. It's impossible. First, they'd get an abortion anyway, even if you do try to stop them. And it's likely they might endanger their own lives to do so.

And second, Agent Rouka here said it best once, forcing a mother to carry to term is like forcing someone to donate their organs to save a car wreck victim. You've saved a life, but you've also violated a person's body, intruded and used and taken against their will and denied them ownership and possession of themselves. To justify doing that, you risk making arguments about the ends justifying the means. It's also kind of ghoulish, when you put it that way.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:14 AM

BYTEMITE


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.



I don't think you can be on the proposed public option AND have a private option for abortion coverage at the same time. That's just how I understand this.

Maybe someone understands this provision better than I do? Or maybe I should go read the darn thing on thomas.gov


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:29 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Planned Parenthood does its best to work with someone's income level for all things, as far as I know. If you're below the poverty line, you can get a break, at least on exams and such. I think they offer the same kind of sliding scale on abortion procedures. They run as much on donations as on payment. I make at least a small donation every month when I go to pick up my pills.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

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


Good LUCK - these things are deliberately written in vague generalities, doubletalk legalese, and deliberate obfuscation both to make it impossible for folks without an expensive legal team to even comprehend, and so it can be re-interpreted at need to mean almost any damn thing.

But here, lemme simplify it for you.
It's a political poison pill, also known as a suicide provision or wrecking amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_amendment

Problem is that partisan bullshit and the fact that no human can hardly make heads or tales of this kind of shit gets involved, and often as not some of these bills "pass" despite containing sometimes horribly unconstitutional or counterproductive measures counter to their whole purpose, just junking up the legal system even more and providing more employment for the slimy lawyers who come up with this crap.

Whatever else I hold against some of the Founding Fathers, THEY at least had the decency to not only conduct their affairs in plain english, but to make DAMN sure that any of their legislation and proposals was clearly comprehensible to anyone who could read at all.

Alas, they erred in not making such a mandatory provision of the Constitution, however.

Anyhows, while I disagree with him on some issues, Dennis Kuchinich makes a good argument against available here.
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20091108074149870

-Frem
"You will never know the joys of heaven.."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:59 AM

DREAMTROVE


Oh yeah, another abortion thread. This question is painfully simple:

It's always been US policy that Govt. funds cannot be used for elective surgery. Abortion, rightly or wrongly, has always been classified as elective surgery.

Now imagine your Barack Obama, and you want to enact the most sweeping healthcare reform bill since medicare. That's an idea that's going to have a lot of resistance, esp. if it's seen as propping up a failing healthcare system or a failing financial sector.

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.

As for securing private coverage: if you're able to secure private coverage, you are by definition not eligible for public coverage. This is also long standing govt. policy. This policy would make the above interpretations correct, but only in a captain obvious manner. Someone is spinning this, hell, everyone is spinning this. I suspect the end result will be what I said at the beginning: We'll get some sort of bill which amounts to corporate welfare. Take a nod from V, don't look to power for a savior.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:23 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


Actually, the amendment is considered to be a restatement of the US policy to not support abortion with government funding.

A minor section of the measure could potentially limit access to abortions, which has pissed off pro-abortion people, and which makes the bill suicide to vote for that way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:02 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, I haven't read all the way through this, but here's what I'm getting:

We already have a law in place that no abortion can be paid for by public/government funds. It's fine.

What they're doing is what they've been doing (the anti-choice bunch) for several years now, trying to limit availability of abortion by other means than killing Roe v. Wade. This amendment apparently makes it so that any insurance company receiving subsidies for insurance premiums cannot cover abortions. Even if the insurance premium is for and paid for by someone NOT receiving any subsidies.

By killing/intimidating abortion providers, and manipulating state laws, the anti-choice bunch of bible thumpers have made ability to get abortions more and more difficult across the country. They got savvy and realized attacking Roe v. Wade wasn't going to work, so they've taken to using other tactics.

This means supposedly that insurance companies will stop offering coverage for abortions (I think there was something about a special--as in "additional cost"--rider, but I'm not sure). They want those subsidized customers, you betcha, so if they can't get them by offering abortion services, they'll STOP.

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

Yes, I'm sickened that they snuk it through at the last minute...I'm sure it was planned a while ago. I think the Congress didn't understand the full impact of it and thought it WAS just re-confirming the already-existing provision that government/public funds would not be used for abortions. But it's much more than that in actuality.

And yes, I agree with whoever said that it's the right-wing's plan to stick it in there, somehow sneak it through, knowing the Senate may do the same, and even if they don't, Dems (not the friggin' Blue Dogs...I no longer consider them Dems!) won't vote for the bill with it in there.

Yes, this leaves the poor out in the cold even more than before, and I think it's pathetic that our Puritanical double-standards screw up this country so badly.

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. Especially now Billy Boy has come out saying "anything's better than nothing". It's definitely NOT, dammit; a bill that does nothing but increase the insurance companies' profits is NOT health care reform by any means and just makes things worse.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:31 PM

BYTEMITE


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:26 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sadly, probably all too true...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:15 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Well, there's some hope that the Stupak amendment will be stripped out of the bill in conference, where they have to hammer out a compromise between the House and Senate versions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 12, 2009 4:54 PM

DREAMTROVE


Byte,

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. Yes, people under the new plan, who also have other coverage, could be ineligible, but they would be anyway. I don't think that it makes women who've had abortions either in general or specifically, ineligible.


Niki,

That wasn't the impression I got, I thought this only applied to the same individuals. If I'm wrong, please post the key text.

If you're right, then it forces a change in corporate policy, that's a 14th amendment issue. Any such policy could and undoubtedly would be challenged on those grounds.

(I hope everyone appreciates the irony of the situation: that the left might need the invoke institution of corporate citizenship. To add even more levels of irony: to do so in order to maintain a liberal policy against a governmental regulatory oversight, and for the kill: from a democratic administration)

Quote:


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



There would have to be, because in that case, it is no longer elective surgery. The real issue here is not Roe v Wade, this is just the spin that both sides want to put on it because they seek political gain from doing so. The core policy is no federal funds for elective surgery, which is a long standing policy. It's the same logic by which you cannot buy a Go Cart or the modern equivalent with foodstamps even if your grovery store sells them: It is an attempt to keep govt programs for paying for what they were intended to pay for: Food stamps are to stop people from starving, medicare is to stop people from dying.

If we enter into some sort of doctor's note exemption than what's really going to happen is we will see doctors writing requests about why their patient needs a nose job, when the real issue is that there are not enough available funds to cover real lifesaving healthcare, even under the new plan. (It's a pretty major issue. The $/patient for lifesaving care under public option would decrease by 1/3, under any Max Baucus style plan, it could decrease a great deal more.)

Quote:

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


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:

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.
Yes, this is what we'll get, it's the Max Baucus bill. I guess that shows who has the power, not Max, the people who own Max.



Byte,
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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:24 PM

BYTEMITE


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.


Ah, I misunderstood your tone and point. Then I agree.

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?



Hear hear. Utah's Blue Dog is in a LOT of trouble, the only people who voted for him were liberals because our conservatives won't vote for a democrat no matter what their stated policies are. He just happens to be from the one district gerrymandered out of the other two to be skewed extreme Republican. Meaning his is the only district in the state to have even a mildly left demographic element. After his voting record this year, he is either gone, or I lose what little faith I have left in the public.

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.



I've heard the Bhutto family are no blushing flowers either, despite the propaganda otherwise from the recent assassination.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 13, 2009 11:12 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT, I could have got it wrong, like I said, that's just what I thought I heard, and what I thought it meant. Heard something different last night (can't remember specifically what, but remember thinking "ah, then I got it a bit wrong"), might have been more along the lines of what you understood. The whole damned thing is so complex at this point, who knows WHO understands it???

If I was right in my interpretation, I don't think it would "force" a change in corporate policy, I think that's up to the company, but I think they WOULD change policy to rake in all those subsidy dollars, so in essence it would have the same effect...

The discussion I heard last night was how companies could separate the subsidies from spending on abortions, with the following question that, if that were the case, what about churches separating government money from what they spend on issues like anti-abortion backing, etc.? Seemed like a good question to me...also seemed like it could be done, if one wanted to, but it's so messy, nobody WOULD.

As to the blue dogs: I agree, and with them. Apparently they were included in the "big tent" in order to get more Dems, but they're more a hindrance to the party than anything else. I think it's great there are some REAL Dems around you...I know the BDs represent a minority, but as is obvious lately, they are numerous enough to stop legislation, and make trying to get the Dems together on anything even more like "herding cats".

Ain't nothin' at this point in time that would make me vote for a Republican...tho' I have in the past. Right now they are acting so crazy, showing no desire whatsoever for actually LEGISLATING our country, only doing whatever they can to bring Obama down, TRULY being the Party of No, and behaving in such an infantile manner, I wouldn't be caught dead.

Another time, fiscal responsibility (I mean ACTUAL responsibility, not the kind we see from them most of the time--in other words, without exclusion of safety net destruction), being against tax cuts for the rich, wanting and being shown to be strong enough to stop Wall Street's idiocies, in favor of careful deliberation before sending our troops out willy-nilly, reasonable dealings with the rest of the world, a sensible environmental policy and desire to cut pollution, and the two things you mentioned would do it for me. But I'm not given to fantasies...
Quote:

The real issue here is not Roe v Wade, this is just the spin that both sides want to put on it because they seek political gain from doing so.
I disagree. I believe it is truly an ideological stance (admittedly also used politically) by the anti-choice religious nutwings. They HAVE minimized access to abortion all over the country; they DO so far recognize they can't fight Roe v. Wade in the courts (and so far haven't had luck getting it changed in Congress); and any group that'll kill to further its agenda and sell the kind of "souvenirs" on e-bay that they have, is dead set on a particular agenda, come hell or high water. That's how I see it, anyway.
Quote:

I guess that shows who has the power, not Max, the people who own Max.
No, the people who own them ALL, or the vast majority of them!!






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 20, 2009 12:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Ah, was lookin for this thread, but it had been a bit buried and I hadda necromance it some...

Isn't it ironic that while they won't finance this, they're ok with payin for prayers ?

Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov0
3,0,6879249,full.story


As usual, separation of church and state, ONLY if your church isn't christian.

And yes, I am lobbin this grenade in direct retaliation for the damn religious wackos whining about how "persecuted" they are, again, as yet another of their ignorance-inducing, anti-society, anti-HUMAN ideas gets shot to fucking shreds by people with a clue.
(I'll not allude to which, but watch the papers for the howling...)

-F

EDIT: Oh, and give Hatch a slap for me, Byte - Utah.. *sigh* ..at least Mormons are on average, halfway decent people, unlike politicians.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 20, 2009 1:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


That *is* ironic, Frem - especially considering that prayer has proven to be overwhelmingly ineffective in getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy, while abortion has about a 100% rate of effectiveness.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 20, 2009 2:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA



I dunno, I'd say 99.99999% - cause I figure Cheneys parents had to have tried it, either that or he sprang, fully formed, from the forehead of Kissinger.

/SNARK!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:42 - 851 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:33 - 444 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:16 - 51 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL