Dems Agree to Drop Government-Run Insurance Option

So wait a second, your version of the government being neutral on a topic is to enforce a rule that discriminates against those that even mention a legal medical procedure in the USA? That's not neutral by any means.

Anyway do you have any data on the Mexico city policy and its efficacy as anything other than a shiny plaything for religious conservatives? I'm dubious of its value but would be interested to see it nonetheless.

You can get a poll that says "Most americans" don't favor this or that depending on the wording of the question. d I dispute that a neutral position for the government is to pick and choose which legal medical procedures are available to people (or, in the case of abortion, can even be mentioned as available), especially when, like it or not, your tax dollars already go to support them in the case of the millions of government workers who get private health insurance.

In general I tend to hate "my tax dollars"argument. What about non-US citizens? They pay billions per year in taxes and fees, many pay far more than you. What about corporations? If we're going to accord moral, if not legal weight to the "my tax dollars" folks, then naturally the rich are the people we should listen to the most? Right?

I'm discussing the politics of it my friend. I recall a few week ago, people were saying Brian Kelly was disqualified from being the head coach at Notre Dame, because he campaigned for Gary Hart. Further, I can't even count the number of blowhard bishops who have issued fiats against pro-choice (invariably Democratic) politicians and communion in recent years. When it's baby killing everybody is ready to jump on board and save the children.

Does anybody recall the same furore in public or in private being made about pro-Death penalty or pro-war politicians? I don't recall it ever happening much if ever. If so it doesn't get nearly the same publicity.

 

For people who believe the death penalty is "murder," yes.

 

As completely consistent with my theory and not really consistent with your speculation.

 

I will agree that you have a bit of an argument here but it seems fairly indirect. Yes money is fungible but how far do you take that argument? Under this argument tax dollars are already paying for abortions if a public employee pays for an abortion using wages they earned.

While the Hyde Amendment must be voted on every year that is something that predates the current health care bill so that isn't an argument for that the health care bill itself will lead to government funded abortions.

It seems there the answer is don't sign up to an insurer who provides abortion coverage. How is that a matter of not being abortion neutral when its left to individuals to decide if they want to sign up for coverage that covers abortion? If anything since there is a penalty for signing up for an insurer that provides abortion coverage the bill is biased against abortion.

It seems like something of a reach that you are applying in regard to claiming that this bill provides abortion coverage. The evidence you provide doesn't directly apply to the bill and in the case of the $12 extra that will have to be paid to plans that cover abortion that is a penalty and not an inducement.

You are free to hold onto your moral beliefs but this seems like a stretch.

 

What speculation? What theory? The Constitution clearly states that the houses of Congress have the right to set their own rules. Are you saying they don't?

 

That's actually what you're saying when you attempted to read an endorsement of filibusters etc into the constitution.

 

Reading is fundamental....

 

Yeah, he severely underestimated the resolve politicians have to their ideology, blind or not.

 

Facts. LOL. Who needs 'em?

 

Sen. Whitehouse: There Will Be A 'Reckoning' For GOP's 'Desperate, No-Holds-Barred Mission Of Propaganda'

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8m8AUUhOB0U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8m8AUUhOB0U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) slammed Republicans for their "desperate, no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, falsehood, obstruction and fear," which he said will result in a "day of judgment" by the American people.

 

This is not the same thing as a federal worker being paid their private salary and using it to pay for an abortion. These subsidies are going straight to the insurance company that provides abortion coverage. I can't imagine too many federal employees are ditching their healthcare coverage from the government (in which I'm assuming abortion is not covered- Google searches are coming up with nothing but healthcare stories, and Blue Cross, who I think handles a bulk of the government's employees, does not seem to cover abortion) to get private health insurance that covers abortion. And it sure as hell is not the same thing as subsidizing those insurers.

Sam, neutral might be a poor word to convey what I meant. Essentially the Hyde Amendment says that federal funds will not be used for abortion. I think the onus would be on you to prove that abortion is health care (except when the life of the mother is concerned). In that sense the Hyde Amendment wasn't saying anything about abortion except that it would not pay for it as part of healthcare.

In the case of 1303(b)(2)(B)-(D), employees are directly having to pay into a fund that does nothing but help insurance companies pay for abortions. If you work at a small company, and they decide to use an insurer that provides abortion, your plan then pays for abortion. Further the Mikulski Amendment allows for the agency that will be running healthcare to determine that abortion is preventive care, which would force all insurance companies that want subsidies to have to provide coverage for abortions. There are numerous loopholes here that are going to increase abortion access and coverage and ultimately the number of abortions.

This is a radically different approach to the government's role in abortion. It's a good thing more people are getting covered, I'm happy for that. But I'm not happy those people now have easy access to abortion coverage in this bill. It's not impossible to provide more coverage without expanding the use of government funds to pay for abortion. Do you really think that this is going to lead to a decrease in abortions? Everything Obama said at Notre Dame is ringing quite hollow at this point.

And let's not even start laying into Bishops. If you want to get into Catholic doctrine about what the Pope speaks ex cathedra about, by all means that is a topic for a different thread. Pro-life means standing up for the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death. Many many pro-lifers are doing that.

 

Twhy, I think you should also focus on increased funding contraception and family planning if you want to decrease the number of abortions instead of just trying to push your religious views to restrict women's access to legal health care.

Hopefully you don't identify with the Palin school of being pro-life in which you discourage birth control and sex education that goes beyond the unsuccesful "just say no" programs of the fundamentalists for teens since this leads to many unwanted pregnancies and abortions since not all teens have the access to money that the Palins have.

BTW voting for conservatives as a one issue anti-abortion voter does lead to lack of nutrition and non-abortion health care for many Americans and in some cases even leads to them and their children losing their lives. This more than negates for the individual acts of charity to those who are actually born by some "pro-lifers".

 

I still don't follow what you are arguing here. The Constitution clearly empowers the two houses of Congress to set their own rules. Filibusters are Constitutional as under Article I the House and Senate have established them.

If you are arguing that there was no intent for filibusters in the Constitution there is nothing that specifically states that but at the same time there is nothing preventing them and if the Framers didn't intend Congress to have things like filibusters they wouldn't have granted the Houses the ability to make such rules.

 

Again you are mistaking your own speculation on the future for the truth to accuse others of lying. I tend to agree with you that this bill isn't likely to be deficit neutral but that doesn't mean that the Democrats are lying since I haven't been to the future to know that.

 

I'm arguing exactly what I wrote down. You're kind of making a mess of things by trying to be too cute with the arguments.

 

LOL, considering that Steele, along with a clutch of RNC interns, was busted earlier this month, inter alia,

*Giving a modified Heisman Pose to the American people*



I guess he knows a lot more about such gestures.

Lots more silly steele pics:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ga...ever-michael-steele-the-rnc-interns.php?img=1