Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

N

NewsBot

Guest
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue....

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

Read the full story.

 

eddo

New member
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue....
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

Read the full story.
wow, my tax money paying for abortions...

I am sooooooooooooooooooooooo not for this....

 

phreakwars

New member
I think that provision was tossed in there for another purpose. As bait for Republicans. Everyone knows **** well they are not gonna back the plan either way. Might as well start throwing in shiit they are REALLY gonna hate and hope that you can get them to compromise and go along with it on the condition that provision is dropped.

I really don't think government should be helping fund abortions, unless of course in cases of rape or incest. Sure private insurance companies do this already, and that should be a talking point for people to buy a plan that offers that coverage over going with a public plan by the government that won't.

.

.

 

Ahhlee

New member
I think abortion is a private, personal decision and should therefore be paid for by the individuals making that decision themselves.

It's such a controversial issue and people have very passionate views about it. It's not right to force the American public to pay for something many are completely and utterly against.

To borrow RO's phrase: The government has no business in the womb.

 

phreakwars

New member
I think abortion is a private, personal decision and should therefore be paid for by the individuals making that decision themselves.
It's such a controversial issue and people have very passionate views about it. It's not right to force the American public to pay for something many are completely and utterly against.

To borrow RO's phrase: The government has no business in the womb.
Agreed. And this is why I say it was tossed in as bait. Nobody in their right mind would think for a second that you could gain ANY Republican votes by tossing this in on top of what they are already complaining about. ****, you have alot of Democrats who are opposed to this, so you HAVE to stand back and go... OK WHAT GIVES?
I smell an ulterior motive. I say there is a method behind this madness.

.

.

 

Ahhlee

New member
Agreed. And this is why I say it was tossed in as bait. Nobody in their right mind would think for a second that you could gain ANY Republican votes by tossing this in on top of what they are already complaining about. ****, you have alot of Democrats who are opposed to this, so you HAVE to stand back and go... OK WHAT GIVES?
I smell an ulterior motive. I say there is a method behind this madness.

.

.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, to be sure. I guess we'll see what our Congress is really made of now, won't we? ;)

 

ImWithStupid

New member
Agreed. And this is why I say it was tossed in as bait. Nobody in their right mind would think for a second that you could gain ANY Republican votes by tossing this in on top of what they are already complaining about. ****, you have alot of Democrats who are opposed to this, so you HAVE to stand back and go... OK WHAT GIVES?
I smell an ulterior motive. I say there is a method behind this madness.

.

.

I still call bull . I can't believe you can't see these people for the secular progressive idealogues that they are.

This is the plan.

You have Hillary who praises Margaret Sanger for her Planned Parenthood desire to abort the poor and undesirable, you have Obama wanting to bring in Tom Daschle, who is lock step wanting to cut medical services to the elderly, there is Obama's "science and technology director" who signs on to the ideas of Peter Singer. John Holdren who believes that birth control should be put in the drinking supply and that babies should be allowed to be aborted up to 20 days after it's born, that animals should have the right to sue humans in court and that *** with animals should be legal if it isn't considered to be cruel to the animal.

None of this includes the whacked out views of Obama's "green czar", Van Jones, you know the guy who got the independent regulator fired by the White House, because he found out that Jones was misusing taxpayer money to pay someone to wash his car and stuff, who wasn't supposed to be fired by the White House without cause, but was anyway because Nancy P. and Harry R. covered for the Pres on his law violation, but I digress.

Van Jones, the guy who was arrested during the Rodney King riots and when he came out of jail, was a communist.

Sad part is, he's not an environmentalist. He's an opportunist. He sees environmentalism as a way to back door communism.

Since January 20th, there hasn't been one piece of legislation passed that hasn't been to pursue some kind of secular progressive agenda.

 

ImWithStupid

New member
Another **** conspiracy theorist? :rolleyes: Definitely authoritarian..

.

Nope. Well known facts. Not even a leap.

Let me guess, you're like the new White House disinformation czar who says Obama has no desire to have a single payer, government controlled health care system, but it's all those right wing whackos saying that's the President's goal?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance[/ame]

What did he say? It might take 10 years? Funny, that's as far out as his fiscal analyst goes.

I can't believe President Obama would start that **** conspiracy theory of what he wants to do. **** him. :rolleyes:

Every **** thing I posted is backed by fact, by the words of the people themselves. No need for conspiracy theories.

 

phreakwars

New member
You know what's gonna happen here don't ya, the Democrats are planning on, and are gonna use reconciliation to pass the health care plan. Personally, I think the plan stinks and should be rewritten in alot of places. Sure Obama is for single payer, single payer using another **** insurance provider, but single payer is NOT what Democrat constituents want, they, along with myself, want UNIVERSAL coverage. Obama is trying to pass off single payer as an alternative to get some of these blue dogs on board. But, no matter, like I said, they are gonna use reconciliation and say fukk the Republicans and the blue dog traitors who get paid by the health industry like Ben Nelson...Same shiit Bush pulled off to get those useless tax cuts that screwed up the economy, then what are ya gonna do? ;)

CHECK MATE, that's what happens when the opposition keeps up the rhetoric and unwillingness to give a bi-partisan effort. And then we WILL have government funded abortions. I suspect reconciliation might ALSO be the reason for a government funded abortion provision, along with a huge number of merciless budget cuts to programs in red states and districts, mostly Republican porkbarrel porgrams,. Time to step it up and play hard ball with the fear and paranoia crowd.

.

.

 

ImWithStupid

New member
You know what's gonna happen here don't ya, the Democrats are planning on, and are gonna use reconciliation to pass the health care plan. Personally, I think the plan stinks and should be rewritten in alot of places. Sure Obama is for single payer, single payer using another **** insurance provider, but single payer is NOT what Democrat constituents want, they, along with myself, want UNIVERSAL coverage. Obama is trying to pass off single payer as an alternative to get some of these blue dogs on board. But, no matter, like I said, they are gonna use reconciliation and say fukk the Republicans and the blue dog traitors who get paid by the health industry like Ben Nelson...Same shiit Bush pulled off to get those useless tax cuts that screwed up the economy, then what are ya gonna do? ;)
CHECK MATE, that's what happens when the opposition keeps up the rhetoric and unwillingness to give a bi-partisan effort. And then we WILL have government funded abortions. I suspect reconciliation might ALSO be the reason for a government funded abortion provision, along with a huge number of merciless budget cuts to programs in red states and districts, mostly Republican porkbarrel porgrams,. Time to step it up and play hard ball with the fear and paranoia crowd.

.

.

Are you stoned. It's the single payer/government option that is driving away the blue dog Democrats. :confused:

Yep. Check mate. When it bankrupts the country there isn't anyone else to blame but your Dem friends.

I'll just rack this whole thread up to you having absolutely no knowledge about what a blue dog is, of what single payer is, and your obvious lack of rational anticipation of any kind of "budget cut" while Obama is in power. Any cut will be spent elsewhere X5. Funny thing is, that "budget cuts" to red states wouldn't mean much because it's the red states that are doing OK. Us working conservatives are propping up the blue states.

 

phreakwars

New member
Are you stoned. It's the single payer/government option that is driving away the blue dog Democrats. :confused:
Yep. Check mate. When it bankrupts the country there isn't anyone else to blame but your Dem friends.

I'll just rack this whole thread up to you having absolutely no knowledge about what a blue dog is, of what single payer is, and your obvious lack of rational anticipation of any kind of "budget cut" while Obama is in power. Any cut will be spent elsewhere X5. Funny thing is, that "budget cuts" to red states wouldn't mean much because it's the red states that are doing OK. Us working conservatives are propping up the blue states.
HAHAHAHA Red states propping up the blue states? Good one!! The red states get more government subsidies then any of the states, quit deluding yourself. Of course I know what a blue dog is and what single payer are. Again, the Democrats want full universal coverage, this single payer **** is one step down from that. The HOPE was that the blue dogs would buy into it, but of course, they don't, those campaign payments from insurance companies and pharma prevent that.
I know I'll be laughing my a$$ off after they use reconciliation to get around the same GOP jerks who opposed social security and medicare for our citizens, and as punishment and as a way to comply with reconciliation rules, kill a bunch of GOP pork projects and toss in all those secular progressive agenda things (like say abortions) you wanna whine about. And the best part, I will be overjoyed with the notion that REAL progress and change has been made, no thanks to the freepers. Kiss 2012 goodbye.

.

.

 

hugo

New member
Funding abortions would lower healthcare costs and most of the babies killed would be future liberals anyways. The first thing I have seen that would actually lower healthcare costs and the number of individuals receiving healthcare.
 

phreakwars

New member
Funding abortions would lower healthcare costs and most of the babies killed would be future liberals anyways. The first thing I have seen that would actually lower healthcare costs and the number of individuals receiving healthcare.
Now your thinkin' :D

.

.

 

timesjoke

Active Members
The thing is "Democrats" do not want a single payer system or a Government run insurance company. Only the most radical elements want those things and current polls show a massive drop in support for Obama's plan........why?

Because he can't explain it.

Well, let me rephrase that, he has the ability to explain it, but he can't tell the truth about it so he keeps all his comments very genaral and non-specific so people can't claim he lied later.

As some of the details of the many plans are being released, more and more people (including Democrats) are speaking out against it.

The "traitor" blue dogs you disrespect Bender are speaking for the majority of Democrats, maybe you should offer them a little more respect.

 

RoyalOrleans

New member
Just can't let this go. It's funny, really, that the Democrats are so scared. They're shell-shocked. How DARE these people show up to protest the Democrat's biggest power grab since FDR? The ungrateful scumbags! The looters know they have to come up with a story, and the best they can do is to demonize the protestors. They insist on pinning any opposition to healthcare reform as a "mob." They want to convince the American public that the only people who are opposing their plans for reform are those infamous "right-wing extremists!" (Weren't they supposed to insert "bigoted" and "mean-spirited" in there somewhere? Remember those people? Those are the people whom Janet Napolitano warned us about many months ago. The commercial says, "Desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November."

I wonder when they're going to get around to calling the opponents "terrorists."

So are the Democrats right? Is it only these fringe Republican "mobs" that oppose their healthcare reform. It is safe to say that the answer is no. The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released some figures yesterday showing that support for healthcare reform among independent voters is down. We aren't talking "right-wing extremists." We are talking about moderate, independent voters who arguably gave Barack Obama the edge in the election.

The Quinnipiac poll found that:

Independent voters, perhaps the key voting group, are more worried about the deficit rising than congressional inaction, 54 - 37 percent. These voters say 59 - 36 percent that overhaul should not occur if it would "significantly" increase the deficit.

Independents oppose 63 - 33 percent passing a bill with only Democratic votes.

Independent voters also don't think Obama can keep his promise to avoid increasing the deficit and pass health care by an overwhelming 77 - 17 percent.

 
Top Bottom