Dems Agree to Drop Government-Run Insurance Option

What agency are you referring too?

 

What does abortion even have to do with the bill now? I really don't understand that.

The argument is that federal money should not be spent on abortions (understandable), and that health care subsidies could be spent on insurance that covers abortions (even though subsidy funds couldn't be used for the abortion coverage). The connection is tenuous at best. Is it any different than getting an education tax break or earned income tax credit which is then spent on an abortion? That's money that's being sent to you by the government being spent on an abortion.

I could sort of understand it in regards to the public option. I don't at all understand it now.

 

It's pretty ironic that someone who identifies as "pro-life" would be against a bill that expands health care to cover an additional 30 million Americans. That's not "pro-life," that's just anti-abortion.

 

Ironic, but not surprising. This country is filled with "one issue voters," who don't care if a candidate is against everything they believe in except that one "overriding" issue. You see it here everyday, and millions across the country are just as simple-minded.

 

This post is damned near sig worthy because it is so true.

I would classify myself as pro life. That is why I find it vitally important to repair our broken health care system. I strongly prefer the government not to fund abortions, but it is pretty clear to me that in order to get the important work done, everybody is going to have to be willing to compromise.

 

It's pretty ironic that Batman would come in during the middle of a conversation and attack someone who wasn't talking to him about being against healthcare reform when that person isn't against healthcare reform.

Think about your argument for a second. It's essentially the same line that was thrown at pro-life people for opposing Obama's overturning of the Mexico City Policy. That you are helping people by providing this money to poor countries, even if some of that money goes to fund abortion.

Take a step back. To someone who is pro-life, abortion is the killing of a human person. So essentially, their tax dollars are going to support the killing of a human person, but hey at least people are getting funds to start agriculture programs and the like.

Is it really so insane to think, hey we could fund agriculture programs and give aid for the poor in a way that doesn't provide abortion? But no, you denigrate everything down to the most political tripe. IT's always the same, if you oppose homosexual activity, you're a bigot, if you oppose healthcare reform that subsidizes abortion coverage, you aren't pro-life. Grow up.

But let me spell it out for you more clearly. From the Manager Amendment:

1303(b)(1)(A) of the current health care plan allows for qualified health plans (which means a plan that recieves tax credits to pay for premiums) to cover elective abortions. You can do whatever accounting tricks (Chris Matthews even said this) you want, money is fungible. Abortion coverage is being subsidized by the government. Hypothetical. Let's say you have a $12,000 a year premium, of which you are responsible for $800. As it currently stands the current amendment says you pay for the abortion from that $800, therefore we are not paying for the abortion. Ridiculous logic. Once again, money is fungible. If they are making up the cost for this on the back end with the government subsidized portion of your annual premium, all that is happening is that they are reducing the amount of money you pay for a premium for non abortion related services.

To add to that, Section 1303(b)(2)(A), which relies on the Hyde Amendment, will be wiped out if the Hyde Amendment is not re-voted in, which has to be done every year. With a really liberal Congress, this is not a given.

1303(b)(2)(B)-(D). Any one who is insured by an insurer that pays for abortion coverage will be required to pay $12(a minimal amount, but still)/year into an account that goes into a fund to do nothing but pay for elective abortions. Once again, we are playing games with accounting and saying that the bill is abortion neutral. It's not.

It is possible to get health care reform without abortion coverage being subsidized in some way shape or form. Stop calling out those who believe they have a moral obligation not to particpate in such heinous acts as being against health care reform. You're better than that.

 

Health Resources and services Administration (HRSA)

 

Why do you think the Democrats election prospects are falling with the prospects for health care reform? Haven't you told us repeatedly that the Democrats are trying to shove an unwanted bill down America's throat? Wouldn't passage of such a bill hurt their election prospects?

 

Why don't you take a step back for a second - abortion is a legally protected procedure here in the United States - why should american $$$ that is being sent abroad be expressly prohibited from being used for something that is completely legal here in the United States? If you start from that position - it doesn't make any logical sense except for a cookie to be tossed to the anti-abortion lobby.

Mind you, this is not a mandate of a mass Congressional purchase of RU486 pills distributed abroad en masse as often misrepresented, it merely says that there is no blanket ban on family planning groups that don't enforce that set of moral beliefs as not being blacklisted.

 

Subsidized with my tax dollars.

Also, the United States Congress has decided not to fund abortions through Medicare since 1976. This current set up is a shell game around that.

 

So?

My tax dollars subsidize many things I find morally reprehensible. It's part of being an American.

 

Murder?

 

I didn't support the war in Iraq

 

Yep!

The death Penalty
Criminal wars

 

And you probably didn't get lambasted for being in here and not supporting it.

I'm not saying what they are doing is illegal or unconstitutional (under the current law).

I'm saying I really don't like what they are doing and I'm going to b**** about it until it's changed. Just like you guys did with the war. Cheers.

 

See above. I'm with you on the DP.

 

What precisely is subsidized with your tax dollars? How much money is being appropriated per fetus murder? How many were saved by this rule? I'm sure there are some dubious figures on this somewhere. (aside, given the relative dearth of US aid abroad - I can't figure it's too much in any event, I also doubt the enforceability/efficac of thsi rule).

But regardless why don't you answer the question? Why should the US put forth what is effectively a moral judgment on abortion abroad when the US itself allows abortion? Can a federal worker using a health plan go to a doctor that offers abortion counseling? If yes, than other than to satisfy you and the pro-life lobby, what is the point of the global gag rule? Why don't those of us who think abortion should be legally protected get to lodge the same objection about our tax dollars being redirected via what appears to be a silly policy?

I mean if we're going to play that "MY TAX DOLLAR$$" game, I can come up with all sorts of taxpayer-subsidized treatemnt that is very definitely illegal according to both US law and probably recognized international law. Billions of dollars every year flow in military assistance to countries that directly practice the most deplorable, awful, violations of human rights that are explicitly (and with little dissent or debate) banned in the US.

That is one of my biggest objections about the pro-life movement, as soon as something gets out of the womb, their interest and the promotion of life falls by the wayside. Probably worthy of another thread, but the dramatic double standard of the pro-life movement with respect to protection of the unborn vs. protection of the already born really gives me trouble taking them seriously. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar by any means, but it seems like a lot of Jesus' message was the opposite of this....rather than picking the easy targets, like protecting the innocent and the virtuous, he went against the grain by hanging with the sinners and the murderers etc. But one rarely sees things like the death penalty etc protected or promoted with the vigor that abortion is. I mean imagine a version of the Mexico City rule for death penalty countries - that simply isn't ever going to be a political reality.

 

Same reason that the Hyde Amendment was passed for, essentially to keep the government neutral on the topic with respect to how it was spending its money. This isn't exactly private choice that is being supported in this plan.

Most Americans don't favor using federal funds to subsidize abortion. Once again, what I'm saying is not that the bill is unconstitutional. We have had a radical different policy before this that was meant to keep tax dollars from being floated towards abortion care.

And you have every right to complain about it. In fact, you do so quite a lot on here. And I'm with you on this issue as well. But you are a lawyer, and you know complaining about taxes doesn't get you standing in a court of law. You change people's minds by getting active and fighting for what you believe. The current bill is a direct change in policy from the Hyde Amendment, from even Obama's statements that he wants to reduce abortions, or that there won't be government funding of abortion.

Dude, complete tripe. Do the research on the numerous women's care centers going up around the nation. Check out any of the sites Max has posted. You're delusional if you think the pro-life movement doesn't care about babies after their born. Shoot the small time pro-life lawyer I worked for this summer (who worked completely pro-bono by the way) made it a point to take on paternity cases when they came up to make sure unwed mothers were being supported. Your above claim is completely false.

 

How do you explain the section of the Constitution that I cited then?

 

I thought they removed any federal funding for abortion?

[edit] I see the posts where you are stating your evidence.[/edit]