I am just amazed that rather than discuss the merits and pitfalls of the House Bill are not being discussed and it has turned into a slap fight owing to pomposity.
Regardless of who is being petty, can people point to aspects of the proposal they find interesting/troubling?
Which is why I stopped posting here and have only read it for laughs lately...works great for that.
It's sort of like people complaining about the public option who also receive Medicare/Medicaid. Or people saying that Medicare/Medicaid are not managed well so should be dismantled and no public option should exist. It almost sounds like a good argument until you, you know, think about it at all.
These are the people that think this bill amounts to a government takeover of health care. They think it will drive all insurance companies out of business if we say they have to stop operating fraudulently (OMG, NUUU! WE LIEK FRAUD! CAPITALISM!). Then they will HAVE to use the public option because it will be the only one, and it will be worse than their current plan. Seriously, I got this argument from someone. I don't know what else he thought because at that point I stopped participating in the conversation.
My usual response to these people is, "It's not FOR you. You can afford private insurance. It's for people who don't have a better option." And leave it at that. The thing speaks for itself. Anyone too stupid to hear it isn't going to be worth arguing with anyway.
Seriously Scott, either work the probation do-dahs so they have some actual meaning or just get rid of them.
under allot of pressure
Don't worry, Scott, I saw this too.
At least 6 more in that one post, but I will refrain from quoting them. I would say that Jay qualifies for an acceptable standard of grammar and spelling - but it is not I who gets to decide what the standard is.
What the hell constitutes an "emergency" abortion now?
Well, that's one of the reasons I dislike it, but I do believe it refers to instances of pregnancy via rape or incest, or pregnancies that endanger the mother's life.
EDIT:
An abortion involving a politician's daughter whose unwed pregnanacy would spell doom for the next campaign.
It's terribly hypocritical of conservatives to consider pregnancy from rape a special case where abortion is allowed. Their arguments are all based on black and white absolutes, yet they make exceptions in gray areas...
There are explanations of how they plan to pay for the bill (raising taxes on people with income over $250,000 a year, cuts in areas that would be redundant, etc.
Right, that part I understood, but what I meant was Medicare/Medicaid specifically. The way I interpreted it was that they were cutting the funding of these programs while putting expanding them as one of their goals - THAT is what I was referring to as seeming counter-productive, not the deficit reduction part.
It's terribly hypocritical of conservatives to consider pregnancy from rape a special case where abortion is allowed. Their arguments are all based on black and white absolutes, yet they make exceptions in gray areas...
I'm sure they want to not be hypocritical, but those pesky women might get disgruntled. Everything is done for a reason. God must have wanted that women raped so a child would be born. It's part of his plan. One day we will see the light. Until then, at least they can keep the non emergency abortions down.
It's terribly hypocritical of conservatives to consider pregnancy from rape a special case where abortion is allowed. Their arguments are all based on black and white absolutes, yet they make exceptions in gray areas...
I'm sure they want to not be hypocritical, but those pesky women might get disgruntled. Everything is done for a reason. God must have wanted that women raped so a child would be born. It's part of his plan. One day we will see the light. Until then, at least they can keep the non emergency abortions down.
Also, in regards to abortion, they're not claiming that it had to happen (the pregnancy in this case of rape), their claim is that as soon as conception occurs, a life (a soul) has been created, and so abortion is killing that soul. Physical development isn't a factor from that standpoint.
I remember Obama speeching some things about that whole malpractice mess, back when he was giving idealistic details on this new plan - anyone know what the bill says about that?
The way they plan to expand Medicare while cutting the funding is that they are lowering what they will allow doctors to charge for procedures. Thus allowing more people to be treated with less money. Sounds great, right?
It sucks for the doctors because they still have to pay their med school bills and for insurance. This is why doctors stop taking certain kinds of insurance, including Medicare...the prices are dictated to them. In order to effectively cut the prices of procedures for doctors, we are going to have to have tort reform so that malpractice prices aren't so high. Then the cost of practicing will go down and doctors will be able to afford to treat patients for the price Medicare will pay. I got the info through my mom's super-secret underground physicians-only website thinger. (That last sentence included a joke, for those incapable of detecting humor through text communication.)
Catholic Bishops advising bill formation. I can not begin to tell you how disgusted I am that this happened. How is this any different from consulting an ayatollah? What would the reaction have been if it had been a group of rabbis? This is despicable and a clear violation of church and state. This is not the Vatican, this is not a theocracy, and we do not need to (nor should we ever) seek permission from religious leaders to form laws. These assholes should be paying taxes if they want to have such a large pool of political influence. As a side note, I want to cockpunch Stupak so badly now.
"The Catholic Church used their power — their clout, if you will — to influence this issue. They had to. It's a basic teaching of the religion," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a leading abortion foe and architect of the health measure's restrictions.
It was Stupak who told Pelosi last Friday that if she wanted a deal on the health bill, she'd be well advised to invite the bishops' staff, who were already in his office, to her table. "I said, 'Well, they're here, and they're one of the key groups you want to have on your side, so why don't we just bring them in and work this out," Stupak said.
Catholic Bishops advising bill formation. I can not begin to tell you how disgusted I am that this happened. How is this any different from consulting an ayatollah? What would the reaction have been if it had been a group of rabbis? This is despicable and a clear violation of church and state. This is not the Vatican, this is not a theocracy, and we do not need to (nor should we ever) seek permission from religious leaders to form laws. These assholes should be paying taxes if they want to have such a large pool of political influence. As a side note, I want to cockpunch Stupak so badly now.
"The Catholic Church used their power — their clout, if you will — to influence this issue. They had to. It's a basic teaching of the religion," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a leading abortion foe and architect of the health measure's restrictions.
It was Stupak who told Pelosi last Friday that if she wanted a deal on the health bill, she'd be well advised to invite the bishops' staff, who were already in his office, to her table. "I said, 'Well, they're here, and they're one of the key groups you want to have on your side, so why don't we just bring them in and work this out," Stupak said.
While this is decidedly in favor of one interest group over another, it has to be noted that in the article it says that those who wanted abortion to be covered by the plan were outvoted by those who do not want it to be covered. That's how our legislative system works. The reason this all happened was because enough people wanted it to happen. To quote,
"Said Saile, "This was a lot of members of Congress listening to their constituents."
The outcome left abortion-rights supporters, who couldn't muster enough votes in the House to head off Catholic abortion foes' intervention, fuming."
My point is a special envoy from a religious group who claims tax exemption waltzed into the speaker of the house's office with the intent to influence the creation of law.
it has to be noted that in the article it says that those who wanted abortion to be covered by the plan were outvoted by those who do not want it to be covered. That's how our legislative system works.
And until this bullshit is removed from the bill, I cannot support it. This is an issue where there should be no compromise.
it has to be noted that in the article it says that those who wanted abortion to be covered by the plan were outvoted by those who do not want it to be covered. That's how our legislative system works.
And until this bullshit is removed from the bill, I cannot support it. This is an issue where there should be no compromise.
I have no problem with maintaining the Hyde amendment, but Burt "I deserve a cockpunch" Stupak wants to make it so that private insurance companies CAN NOT cover women who want abortions if they are participating at all in the insurance exchange, which was created to keep them competitive with the government option. That means it will be expensive private insurance that will allow abortions to be covered at all.
Additionally, WHO THE FUCK THINKS MAKING ABORTIONS HARDER TO GET OR ILLEGAL WILL STOP THEM FROM HAPPENING?! SERIOUSLY?!
Additionally, WHO THE FUCK THINKS MAKING ABORTIONS HARDER OR ILLEGAL WILL STOP THEM FROM HAPPENING?! SERIOUSLY?!
The same people who created Prohibition. The same people who want to teach abstinence instead of safe sex. The same people who don't want to legalize marijuana. The same people who refuse to fix roads because they think people will use public transportation instead. Etc.
Additionally, WHO THE FUCK THINKS MAKING ABORTIONS HARDER TO GET OR ILLEGAL WILL STOP THEM FROM HAPPENING?! SERIOUSLY?!
Who thinks making murder illegal will make it stop happening? No-one, but what people do think is that it makes it happen less.
Sure, there may, MAY be fewer abortions overall. However, the material point is that many women that seek illegal abortions will be taking a huge health risk. How many women should be injured, maimed and killed to justify saving a few potential life forms?
Additionally, WHO THE FUCK THINKS MAKING ABORTIONS HARDER TO GET OR ILLEGAL WILL STOP THEM FROM HAPPENING?! SERIOUSLY?!
Who thinks making murder illegal will make it stop happening? No-one, but what people do think is that it makes it happen less.
Sure, there may, MAY be fewer abortions overall. However, the material point is that many women that seek illegal abortions will be taking a huge health risk. How many women should be injured, maimed and killed to justify saving a few potential life forms?
None, of course, but the point is that the "pro-life" campaign is correct in its assumption that less abortions will occur if they aren't covered by insurance.
Sure, there may, MAY be fewer abortions overall. However, the material point is that many women that seek illegal abortions will be taking a huge health risk. How many women should be injured, maimed and killed to justify saving a few potential life forms?
I dunno, why don't we ask the bishops?
Hello First Amendment. In what way does this represent "a wall of separation between church and state"? There is none here! The church is directly influencing the state yet again, and it is widely acknowledged. Wtf?
None, of course, but the point is that the "pro-life" campaign is correct in its assumption that less abortions will occur if they aren't covered by insurance.
Just like teaching abstinence in schools resulted in fewer STDs and pregnant teenagers. Their methods only exacerbate the problem that they wish to stamp out. ARGH.
Enough make any real difference? Prohibition of alcohol and certain drugs hasn't worked so well thus far.
I do think it would make a real difference, partly because of your previous point that abortions from cheaper, non-sanctioned sources would carry a heavy risk. Additionally, the greatest issue with banning alcohol was that it is so very easy to make the stuff.
Just like teaching abstinence in schools resulted in fewer STDs and pregnant teenagers. Their methods only exacerbate the problem that they wish to stamp out. ARGH.
Teaching abstinence probably does result in less sex, but significantly more unprotected sex and hence STDs and pregnancies. Likewise, deterring abortion with financial or legal means would result in fewer abortions, but more abortion-related death or injury to mothers.
Hello First Amendment. In what way does this represent "a wall of separation between church and state"? There is none here! The church is directly influencing the state yet again, and it is widely acknowledged. Wtf?
Before you talk about the First Amendment, take the time to read it. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
The Church has a right to free speech. (Woops... I bet you forgot that part.) They can say what they want, and to whom they want. (assuming they comply with tax laws) Congress, on the other hand, can't pass a law in violation of the First Amendment. See how this works?
Enough make any real difference? Prohibition of alcohol and certain drugs hasn't worked so well thus far.
I do think it would make a real difference, partly because of your previous point that abortions from cheaper, non-sanctioned sources would carry a heavy risk. Additionally, the greatest issue with banning alcohol was that it is so very easy to make the stuff.
Just like teaching abstinence in schools resulted in fewer STDs and pregnant teenagers. Their methods only exacerbate the problem that they wish to stamp out. ARGH.
Teaching abstinence probably does result in less sex, but significantly more unprotected sex and hence STDs and pregnancies. Likewise, deterring abortion with financial or legal means would result in fewer abortions, but more abortion-related death or injury to mothers.
That first statement was mine. Tub gin and homemade alcohol poisoned a lot of people. Illegal drugs are processed poorly, cut with god knows what and drug processing can create a huge public health hazard (hello meth labs). Also, if you think teaching abstinence results in LESS sex, then you are clueless about the history of sexual habits in times and places where abstinence wasn't just a choice, but the ONLY choice. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings abortions are legal medical options and should not be treated differently than any other medical option under insurance. When it is elective, it should not be covered. When there is a medical need, it should be. For those that would elect to have an non-essential abortion, go to a low cost clinic. If you support having low-cost optional abortions, make your charitable donations to such organizations.
Also, if you think teaching abstinence results in LESS sex, then you are clueless about the history of sexual habits in times and places where abstinence wasn't just a choice, but the ONLY choice.
I doubt there's enough evidence either way, in the end.
Regardless of anyone's personal feelings abortions are legal medical options and should not be treated differently than any other medical option under insurance.
Comments
My usual response to these people is, "It's not FOR you. You can afford private insurance. It's for people who don't have a better option." And leave it at that. The thing speaks for itself. Anyone too stupid to hear it isn't going to be worth arguing with anyway.
OK, I also really don't like that they're only subsidizing "emergency" abortions. That's a lot of horseshit right there.
EDIT: Zing!
It sucks for the doctors because they still have to pay their med school bills and for insurance. This is why doctors stop taking certain kinds of insurance, including Medicare...the prices are dictated to them. In order to effectively cut the prices of procedures for doctors, we are going to have to have tort reform so that malpractice prices aren't so high. Then the cost of practicing will go down and doctors will be able to afford to treat patients for the price Medicare will pay. I got the info through my mom's super-secret underground physicians-only website thinger. (That last sentence included a joke, for those incapable of detecting humor through text communication.)
I can not begin to tell you how disgusted I am that this happened. How is this any different from consulting an ayatollah? What would the reaction have been if it had been a group of rabbis? This is despicable and a clear violation of church and state. This is not the Vatican, this is not a theocracy, and we do not need to (nor should we ever) seek permission from religious leaders to form laws. These assholes should be paying taxes if they want to have such a large pool of political influence. As a side note, I want to cockpunch Stupak so badly now.
BULL and SHIT.
Additionally, WHO THE FUCK THINKS MAKING ABORTIONS HARDER TO GET OR ILLEGAL WILL STOP THEM FROM HAPPENING?! SERIOUSLY?!
Hello First Amendment. In what way does this represent "a wall of separation between church and state"? There is none here! The church is directly influencing the state yet again, and it is widely acknowledged. Wtf? Just like teaching abstinence in schools resulted in fewer STDs and pregnant teenagers. Their methods only exacerbate the problem that they wish to stamp out. ARGH.
The Church has a right to free speech. (Woops... I bet you forgot that part.) They can say what they want, and to whom they want. (assuming they comply with tax laws) Congress, on the other hand, can't pass a law in violation of the First Amendment. See how this works?
Tub gin and homemade alcohol poisoned a lot of people. Illegal drugs are processed poorly, cut with god knows what and drug processing can create a huge public health hazard (hello meth labs).
Also, if you think teaching abstinence results in LESS sex, then you are clueless about the history of sexual habits in times and places where abstinence wasn't just a choice, but the ONLY choice.
Regardless of anyone's personal feelings abortions are legal medical options and should not be treated differently than any other medical option under insurance. When it is elective, it should not be covered. When there is a medical need, it should be. For those that would elect to have an non-essential abortion, go to a low cost clinic. If you support having low-cost optional abortions, make your charitable donations to such organizations.