| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/24/2010 09:33:26 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Niten:
The bill is abortion neutral. Stop trying to use abortion to push your anti Dem positions. |
I am certainly not against dems... it's the socialists I am against. If you believe this bill is abortion neutral then you are being foolish. They try to hide the pro abortion slant with terminology like 'community health center'. But unless you are a fool you understand what this is about. It is about indoctrinating our children with the ideas that planned parenthood espouses... I guess they are abortion neutral as well?? It specifically calls for public funding of health plans that provide abortions. How much more pro-abortion can you be?? If it is not pro-abortion then why did Stupak and his group hold out for language that would stop the tax-payer funding of abortion only to cave and settle for the worthless executive order?? |
Planned parenthood is about women's health, not abortion. I went there for many years and used their services. And guess what? I've never had an abortion! |
How many children do you have? Planned Parenthood has a pro-abortion agenda and if you don't realize this then you are either burying your head in the sand or just naive.
check out this link Planned Parenthood and their stand on abortion
Message edited by author 2010-03-24 09:45:21. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 09:45:31 AM · #202 |
| How many children have YOU had? And what gives you the right to tell Kelli or any other woman how many children she can or can't have, should or shouldn't have? Hmmm? |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 09:48:29 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Niten:
The bill is abortion neutral. Stop trying to use abortion to push your anti Dem positions. |
I am certainly not against dems... it's the socialists I am against. If you believe this bill is abortion neutral then you are being foolish. They try to hide the pro abortion slant with terminology like 'community health center'. But unless you are a fool you understand what this is about. It is about indoctrinating our children with the ideas that planned parenthood espouses... I guess they are abortion neutral as well?? It specifically calls for public funding of health plans that provide abortions. How much more pro-abortion can you be?? If it is not pro-abortion then why did Stupak and his group hold out for language that would stop the tax-payer funding of abortion only to cave and settle for the worthless executive order?? |
Planned parenthood is about women's health, not abortion. I went there for many years and used their services. And guess what? I've never had an abortion! |
How many children do you have? Planned Parenthood has a pro-abortion agenda and if you don't realize this then you are either burying your head in the sand or just naive.
check out this link Planned Parenthood and their stand on abortion |
I have two. And they never tried to talk me "into" an abortion. Yes, they provide them. It is a service that does need to be provided somewhere and since it is a women's center dealing with women's issues it makes sense for them to provide the procedure. It never fails to amaze me though that some people can't get past that. Tell me, what would you do with all the unwanted children if abortion were to become illegal? Who would care for the Aids babies, the crack/heroin addicted babies, the severely deformed babies, the list goes on & on? Who would take care of them? Who would pay for it? Because the bottom line is you can not make someone care for a baby they do not want. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then a new born baby thrown into a trash bin, drowned in a toilet or thrown from a bridge. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then a child starved to death, beaten to death or used by some scum bag pedophile. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then the abuse & neglect inflicted on the unwanted child. Have you ever seen a baby in the NICU scream non stop for months after being born addicted? It's not a pretty sight. In the ideal world, every child conceived would be conceived in love & wanted and cared for. We don't live in an ideal world.
eta: And since this thread is about health care reform I'll add this... Who would pay for the medical needs of women forced to carry a pregnancy to term who doesn't want the child?
Message edited by author 2010-03-24 09:53:23. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:03:16 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Niten:
The bill is abortion neutral. Stop trying to use abortion to push your anti Dem positions. |
I am certainly not against dems... it's the socialists I am against. If you believe this bill is abortion neutral then you are being foolish. They try to hide the pro abortion slant with terminology like 'community health center'. But unless you are a fool you understand what this is about. It is about indoctrinating our children with the ideas that planned parenthood espouses... I guess they are abortion neutral as well?? It specifically calls for public funding of health plans that provide abortions. How much more pro-abortion can you be?? If it is not pro-abortion then why did Stupak and his group hold out for language that would stop the tax-payer funding of abortion only to cave and settle for the worthless executive order?? |
Planned parenthood is about women's health, not abortion. I went there for many years and used their services. And guess what? I've never had an abortion! |
How many children do you have? Planned Parenthood has a pro-abortion agenda and if you don't realize this then you are either burying your head in the sand or just naive.
check out this link Planned Parenthood and their stand on abortion |
I have two. And they never tried to talk me "into" an abortion. Yes, they provide them. It is a service that does need to be provided somewhere and since it is a women's center dealing with women's issues it makes sense for them to provide the procedure. It never fails to amaze me though that some people can't get past that. Tell me, what would you do with all the unwanted children if abortion were to become illegal? Who would care for the Aids babies, the crack/heroin addicted babies, the severely deformed babies, the list goes on & on? Who would take care of them? Who would pay for it? Because the bottom line is you can not make someone care for a baby they do not want. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then a new born baby thrown into a trash bin, drowned in a toilet or thrown from a bridge. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then a child starved to death, beaten to death or used by some scum bag pedophile. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then the abuse & neglect inflicted on the unwanted child. Have you ever seen a baby in the NICU scream non stop for months after being born addicted? It's not a pretty sight. In the ideal world, every child conceived would be conceived in love & wanted and cared for. We don't live in an ideal world. |
So if the child is not perfect we should kill it to save it the misery of living? By your logic if my child were to become too burdensome I should be able to humanely put the child down like a dog or a cat.. after all I certainly wouldn't want to burden society with a child no one wants. Getting down to brass tacks here we both know also that the majority of abortions have nothing to do with deformity or addiction. We know the majority of them are carried out as a result of the inconvenience that a baby would impose on the 'mother'. It is selfish in the highest degree and just plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:08:41 AM · #205 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I am certainly not against dems... it's the socialists I am against. |
Public schools, Social Security, food and drug safety, national currency, libraries, the highway system, the internet, rural electricity, U.S. mail, federal prisons and courts, clean water, sewers, police, fire and national defense are all "socialist" systems established for the common good of the people. Unless you live in a tent on Walden Pond, you're not against socialism. It's hogwash.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
If it is not pro-abortion then why did Stupak and his group hold out for language that would stop the tax-payer funding of abortion only to cave and settle for the worthless executive order?? |
If it was pro-abortion, then the very anti-abortion Stupak wouldn't have voted for it, and the National Organization of Women wouldn't be freaking out over it. Other "worthless" executive orders include the Emancipation Proclamation, establishment of the Peace Corps, desegregation of the armed forces and schools, and President Reagan's barring the use of federal funds for abortion in the first place (a policy that this one continues). Not a good idea to call other people fools while you're spouting nonsense.
Message edited by author 2010-03-24 10:20:08. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:38:14 AM · #206 |
Can we PLEASE get this thread back on the topic, "US Health Reform"? The bill has been passed, it's interesting to discuss the overall, long-term impact it is going to have. The part of it relating to abortion is minuscule, the "compromise" was part of what had to be done to get it passed, there were a LOT of compromises and they have arguably gutted the bill past any chance of its being an effective step forward, why do we have to turn this thread over to ranting on a single, hot-button issue?
R. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:46:14 AM · #207 |
| Because one participant has an axe to grind and time to kill. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:47:39 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
there were a LOT of compromises and they have arguably gutted the bill past any chance of its being an effective step forward |
Now THERE'S a valid issue. Another interesting aspect is that the Republicans are now going to try blocking the reconciliation bill, which means challenging some popular ideas. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:49:11 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Niten:
The bill is abortion neutral. Stop trying to use abortion to push your anti Dem positions. |
I am certainly not against dems... it's the socialists I am against. If you believe this bill is abortion neutral then you are being foolish. They try to hide the pro abortion slant with terminology like 'community health center'. But unless you are a fool you understand what this is about. It is about indoctrinating our children with the ideas that planned parenthood espouses... I guess they are abortion neutral as well?? It specifically calls for public funding of health plans that provide abortions. How much more pro-abortion can you be?? If it is not pro-abortion then why did Stupak and his group hold out for language that would stop the tax-payer funding of abortion only to cave and settle for the worthless executive order?? |
Planned parenthood is about women's health, not abortion. I went there for many years and used their services. And guess what? I've never had an abortion! |
How many children do you have? Planned Parenthood has a pro-abortion agenda and if you don't realize this then you are either burying your head in the sand or just naive.
check out this link Planned Parenthood and their stand on abortion |
I have two. And they never tried to talk me "into" an abortion. Yes, they provide them. It is a service that does need to be provided somewhere and since it is a women's center dealing with women's issues it makes sense for them to provide the procedure. It never fails to amaze me though that some people can't get past that. Tell me, what would you do with all the unwanted children if abortion were to become illegal? Who would care for the Aids babies, the crack/heroin addicted babies, the severely deformed babies, the list goes on & on? Who would take care of them? Who would pay for it? Because the bottom line is you can not make someone care for a baby they do not want. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then a new born baby thrown into a trash bin, drowned in a toilet or thrown from a bridge. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then a child starved to death, beaten to death or used by some scum bag pedophile. I'd much rather see an embryo aborted then the abuse & neglect inflicted on the unwanted child. Have you ever seen a baby in the NICU scream non stop for months after being born addicted? It's not a pretty sight. In the ideal world, every child conceived would be conceived in love & wanted and cared for. We don't live in an ideal world. |
So if the child is not perfect we should kill it to save it the misery of living? By your logic if my child were to become too burdensome I should be able to humanely put the child down like a dog or a cat.. after all I certainly wouldn't want to burden society with a child no one wants. Getting down to brass tacks here we both know also that the majority of abortions have nothing to do with deformity or addiction. We know the majority of them are carried out as a result of the inconvenience that a baby would impose on the 'mother'. It is selfish in the highest degree and just plain wrong. |
Don't presume to know my logic. You just spouted a bunch of nonsense and you know it. If you want to argue about this and hear my views, make a new thread and I'll be happy to argue/debate with you. But mind you I'll want real answers from you for some very tough questions. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:50:18 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Because one participant has an axe to grind and time to kill. |
Well he should grind his frickin' axe in a dedicated "Abortion is Evil" thread and leave this one to a more fruitful discussion. SC has the power to make that happen, don't they?
R. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:50:30 AM · #211 |
| It seems a lot of this bill wouldn't even take effect for 4 years unless I'm reading stuff wrong. Why the delay? |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:51:52 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
It seems a lot of this bill wouldn't even take effect for 4 years unless I'm reading stuff wrong. Why the delay? |
It's called "politics", but what it really means is the entrenched interests need time to make the transition so they get as rich as possible, if you ask me...
R. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:59:20 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
My religion (of which I still have freedom to practice at the moment) states 'Thou shalt not murder' as one of it's big ten rules. I would assume that to mean that I shouldn't also be a party to what I would consider murder. This Health-care bill should be repealed... |
Lack of insurance results in 45,000 deaths per year in the U.S., so fighting to repeal expansion of health coverage puts you in direct (and arguably greater) violation of your stated belief. |
As sad as that is here is another staggering stat that shows having insurance (Medicare) could cause twice as much death per year than not having insurance could cause.
98,000 Deaths per year
The HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study is the first to look at the mortality and economic impact of medical errors and injuries that occurred during Medicare hospital admissions nationwide from 2000 to 2002. The HealthGrades study applied the mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003. The Zhan and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999 report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000 deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 10:59:34 AM · #214 |
The hard numbers are: $940B over ten years starting in 2014 for a decidedly non-socialist health care bill (unlike those in all the other Western industrialized countries) that still enriches insurance companies for some reason. The cost of the war in Iraq is $747B from 2003 to 2010, and in Afghanistan it's $299B from 2001 to 2010. The total cost of war is $1.05 trillion dollars, not including another $30B for the surge. That's money already spent.
So where's the outrage and the cries of "bankrupting the nation" when it comes to sanctioned murder of the war variety? |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 11:12:03 AM · #215 |
| Face it, there are just too many people in the world. War is good. Lack of health care is good. The stupid and poor will die off and eventually the rich will have to do their own laundry. Then there will be hell to pay. :-) |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 11:19:16 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Face it, there are just too many people in the world. War is good. Lack of health care is good. The stupid and poor will die off and eventually the rich will have to do their own laundry. Then there will be hell to pay. :-) |
ROFL! |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 11:21:39 AM · #217 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Lack of insurance results in 45,000 deaths per year in the U.S., so fighting to repeal expansion of health coverage puts you in direct (and arguably greater) violation of your stated belief. |
As sad as that is here is another staggering stat that shows having insurance (Medicare) could cause twice as much death per year than not having insurance could cause. |
Your statement is seriously flawed in a number of ways. Human error will always occur in hospitals to some small degree (people make mistakes). They are not limited to Medicare hospitals. Restricting the study to Medicare admissions will also tend to exaggerate the numbers since it only considers patients 65 and older— a pool with less resiliency and more health compromises than younger groups. Moreover, you're talking about a study that found 195,000 annual deaths over 3 years out of 37 million patient records. That's 1.58%. While unfortunate, losing 1.58% of the 45,000 uninsured still means saving over 44,000 lives annually— like averting FIFTEEN 9/11 attacks every single year. What's THAT worth?
Message edited by author 2010-03-24 11:26:57. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 11:43:42 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Lack of insurance results in 45,000 deaths per year in the U.S., so fighting to repeal expansion of health coverage puts you in direct (and arguably greater) violation of your stated belief. |
As sad as that is here is another staggering stat that shows having insurance (Medicare) could cause twice as much death per year than not having insurance could cause. |
Your statement is seriously flawed in a number of ways. Human error will always occur in hospitals to some small degree (people make mistakes). They are not limited to Medicare hospitals. Restricting the study to Medicare admissions will also tend to exaggerate the numbers since it only considers patients 65 and older— a pool with less resiliency and more health compromises than younger groups. Moreover, you're talking about a study that found 195,000 annual deaths over 3 years out of 37 million patient records. That's 1.58%. While unfortunate, losing 1.58% of the 45,000 uninsured still means saving over 44,000 lives annually— like averting FIFTEEN 9/11 attacks every single year. What's THAT worth? |
I'm in no way trying to down play the stat you posted. After all my family is one of the 30+ million people without insurance and could use it. I'm the only one in my household with some insurance (medicare) because I'm disabled.
Since my wife was laid off almost a year ago we live on $1251 a/mo. plus her unemployment ($261). Try paying a cobra payment of $1098 /mo. out of that and live; you can't. I called BCBS to try to get insurance; could not get it, they said I did not qualify. I don't have Part D so no one in our household has prescription drug benefits. We have to buy what we can, when we can. The typical eat or take your medication situation.
My wife has put in over 600 applications and resumes since being laid off to no avail. So if anyone should be for healthcare reform it would have to be my family and I. But I have read a lot of this bill. It may help us in some ways but at what expense to future generations and others via taxes and services that will be cut or hard to come by. To give an example I had an eye problem three weeks ago. I'm a diabetic so medicare covers eye exams but not glasses or prescriptions. I awoke to have no vision in my left eye. Within 10 minutes my vision returned but less than optimal. It happened once more about a week later. It took me three weeks to find a ophthalmologist that would take medicare. I had my eye exam yesterday. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 12:22:40 PM · #219 |
Here is a sampling of how different types will be affected by the health care overhaul.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2010 12:36:21 PM · #220 |
That's interesting, but sure misses a lot of people groups. What about your regular average American, upper middle-income, with kids, insured currently thru work?
Is my coverage thru work going to change because my employer has to make changes now? (I'm thinking yes, I'll end up paying more for either insurance or higher taxes, or possibly both)
Will healthcare providers be able to keep up with the increased demand? (Will I get the same level of service...I'm thinking, probably not) |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 01:01:53 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What about your regular average American, upper middle-income, with kids, insured currently thru work? |
You'd still be insured through work, same as now. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 01:48:27 PM · #222 |
Here's an interesting article that exposes the myths about the healthcare plan (according to the author anyway).
Obviously written by some right-wing, tea-bagging, gun-toting, racist redneck.
...oh wait, sorry - she's a hardcore liberal, progressive, America-hating, left-wing, marxist commie. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 02:01:42 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Here's an interesting article that exposes the myths about the healthcare plan (according to the author anyway). |
Well, it is on the Opinion page. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 02:11:51 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What about your regular average American, upper middle-income, with kids, insured currently thru work? |
You'd still be insured through work, same as now. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering 35 percent of their health care premiums, increasing to 50 percent by 2014. |
Message edited by author 2010-03-24 14:57:50. |
|
|
|
03/24/2010 02:14:32 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Here's an interesting article that exposes the myths about the healthcare plan (according to the author anyway). |
Well, it is on the Opinion page. |
True, but everything about the effects of this bill are opinion at this point. Well, other than the fact that it is bringing out the worst in so many otherwise civil and respectful people. (on both sides of the issue) |
|
