and..............

A new poll shows that 58% of Americans don't want abortions to be paid for as part of any new public insurance plan.

Yet four of the five health care plans floating around Congress include language that would allow abortions to be paid for with public money. The only one that doesn't the Republican plan in the Senate probably won't go anywhere.

Joy Yearout, communications director for the Susan B. Anthony list, thinks that the plans' inclusion of abortion is a direct result of Obama's previously stated desire to include abortion in any public health care legislation despite more recent claims to the contrary.

"The President promised Planned Parenthood last year that abortion would be included in any health care legislation he proposed," said Yearout. "It's just a shell game."

In the poll, fifty-eight percent of Americans disagreed with the statement, "If the government is going to make a public health plan available for all Americans it has an obligation to provide abortion services under that plan." Fifty-five percent of Americans agreed with the statement, "Whatever my opinion on the issue, I think it would be wrong for the government to pay for abortions."

"Today's polling data offers the latest compelling reason for Congress to reject the President's health care proposal without authentic language to exclude abortion funding," said Yearout.

In previous statements, Planned Parenthood has claimed that the public health insurance plan would be funded by an exchange, which is "funded and paid for by private individual premiums, in the same way a private insurance plan is."

"The U.S. Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to discriminate on the basis of citizenship"

For right to due process, etc.? Yes. For loads of other stuff? Please show me the relevant passage.

"Prior to joining FOX as a news analyst, Napolitano was the presiding judge on the television show, Power of Attorney, which was similar to shows such as, The People's Court."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"According to the U.S. Constitution, if one class of people are to receive benefits under Federal law, then all classes of people, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, are required to receive fair and equitable treatment. This goes for health care and anything else."

The Constitution says no such thing.

"According to the U.S. Constitution, if one class of people are to receive benefits under Federal law, then all classes of people, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, are required to receive fair and equitable treatment. This goes for health care and anything else."

Gee, I guess that means gays can marry...right Judge?

What's Next for You WingDings -------- Constitutional Scholar Judge Judy?

And what kind of Boob Resigns from a Lifetime Appointment?

Oh, that's Right ---- The One Who Has to Get Out of Town, Fast!

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Gee, I guess that means gays can marry...right Judge?

It also means that quotas are illegal, race based scholarships are illegal, etc.

Fine with me.

Does this mean States are no longer going to foot the bill for illegals who receive free care? Seeing as EVERYONE is covered under State Law, why is this provision written into the legislation?

"It also means that quotas are illegal, race based scholarships are illegal, etc."

So we both know Napolitano is full of shit.

Fine with me.

How does one propose to deal with the question of illegals getting health care here?

It's unethical (medically and otherwise) to deny health care to an individual who is in need. What do we do with doctors who allow their personal or political beliefs to cause them to commit an unethical act? Should they be exempt from their professional ethics standards because they're dealing with illegals? I don't think so.

The problem of illegals can only be solved one way and until we stop the flow and deport those we can find, all these other symptoms of the broken system will continue to be a problem.

So we both know Napolitano is full of shit.

I'm not sure who he is, and I don't care enough to google, so I'll just have to take your word for it.

"I'm not sure who he is, and I don't care enough to google, so I'll just have to take your word for it."

Huh? He's making a proclamation, and we both found gigantic "exceptions". What's not to know?

Huh? He's making a proclamation, and we both found gigantic "exceptions".

I found an exception to his quote. That is possible without knowing who he is.

What's not to know?

The man. I think I've heard his name before, but as I said, it never was a high priority for me to research the guy. When I first saw it, I thought he invented one of my favorite ice creams.

Didn't I read upthread he does Fox? Probably why I haven't heard much about him. I don't watch that much TV and when I do, it's usually Discovery, NG, or History Channel on the rig.

This thread is based on some right wing idiot's blog post. Laughable.

"Critics say there is no way to enforce the ban on subsidies for undocumented workers, since the Democratic majority in the House turned back a Republican effort to explicitly stiffen citizenship checks. But Medicare and Medicaid already require those enrolled to provide "a substantial number of documents" to show they're U.S. citizens or legal residents, said Henrie Treadwell, a professor of community and preventive medicine at Atlanta's Morehouse University medical school.

Treadwell calls the issue a "red herring," since many of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States are getting treatment at emergency rooms already. Doctors are obligated to treat people who show up regardless of citizenship, and most of those costs are being absorbed by hospitals and state and local governments, Treadwell said.

"It is certainly not just something that disappears," she said. "We are paying now for care that is not preventive, and we are paying millions."

Some Republicans argue that the measure has left a loophole for undocumented relatives of legal residents to be covered. But Treadwell disputes that, telling CNN that based on her reading of the bills, "There is no loophole currently." The language in Section 242 of the House bill limits benefits to family members who are citizens or legal residents, she said.

In addition, a widely circulated e-mail critical of the bill states that a non-discrimination clause in Section 152 would require illegal immigrants to be covered by a public health insurance plan. But the first line of that provision forbids discrimination "except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this act."

The verdict:

False. A new report finds the bill could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but it clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal residents."

"Critics say there is no way to enforce the ban on subsidies for undocumented workers, since the Democratic majority in the House turned back a Republican effort to explicitly stiffen citizenship checks. But Medicare and Medicaid already require those enrolled to provide "a substantial number of documents" to show they're U.S. citizens or legal residents, said Henrie Treadwell, a professor of community and preventive medicine at Atlanta's Morehouse University medical school.

Treadwell calls the issue a "red herring," since many of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States are getting treatment at emergency rooms already. Doctors are obligated to treat people who show up regardless of citizenship, and most of those costs are being absorbed by hospitals and state and local governments, Treadwell said.

"It is certainly not just something that disappears," she said. "We are paying now for care that is not preventive, and we are paying millions."

Some Republicans argue that the measure has left a loophole for undocumented relatives of legal residents to be covered. But Treadwell disputes that, telling CNN that based on her reading of the bills, "There is no loophole currently." The language in Section 242 of the House bill limits benefits to family members who are citizens or legal residents, she said.

In addition, a widely circulated e-mail critical of the bill states that a non-discrimination clause in Section 152 would require illegal immigrants to be covered by a public health insurance plan. But the first line of that provision forbids discrimination "except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this act."

The verdict:

False. A new report finds the bill could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but it clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal residents."

oopsy!

Goat.

The science channel also frakkin rocks.

The science channel also frakkin rocks.

I'll bet it does, but we don't get that one on the rig, unfortunately.

#19

Another channel I like is hte Military Channel. It kicks ass!

I miss Discovery, NatGeo, and History since cancelling my Directv, but that is really all.

I'm always in hotels so the only channels that I get on the reg are cnn, fox and discovery. I feel lucky when I get history channel.

Last night President Obama made what was touted by much of the media as a major address to Congress and the American people on healthcare. I'm not going to write a lengthy response to the speech because first, there was really nothing new in it, and secondly, he did not address the Constitutional issues. In fact, most of the health care bill supporters are running like mad from having to respond to questions from Americans on those issues.

Instead, they take the arrogant and elitist approach that the President took last night; accusing all who oppose the enlightened paternalism of the left of either being evil or just too dumb to know that we have to be taken care of by "Big Brother". In other words, there was little in the speech that I have not already addressed in my previous articles posted here.

There is one issue that I need to address however, since not only have the President and members of Congress been making a point of it, but I have received several e-mails asking me about it. That is the question of whether illegal immigrants will get medical care under the provisions of HR 3200. My answer is clearly yes. This is disputed by those who point to Section 246 of the bill that is titled: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens".

That seems clear enough, but what does it really say in the section. There is only one sentence in the section and it states:

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

ONCE AGAIN

dont judge dems by what they say
judge them by their actions

TWICE they voted down amendments to make this crystal clear ...

and thats all 'ive gots to say bout that.

Do illegal immigrants qualify for Medicare??

Gee, I guess that means gays can marry...right Judge?

Equal protection doesn't apply. Gays CAN marry.... a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else can. The law treats everyone equally in this regard. Nothing about the marriage laws says anything about "marrying someone you love" so that tired argument doesn't apply to the Equal Protection Clause.

It also means that quotas are illegal, race based scholarships are illegal, etc.

Quotas officially don't violate Equal Protection, because according to the rationale to institute them, there were put in place to ENSURE equal protection where it wasn't being given.

I don't agree with the rationale, but the concept has already been accepted as precedent.

Race based scholarships are another story. I have seen arguments both ways. I personally believe they do violate Equal Protection, but so far the powers-that-be seem to disagree.

Sorry, Danforth, but these are hardly "gaping holes".

BTW... show me one thing in HR3200 that requires a person to prove citizenship before getting insurance through the Bill. THAT is the biggest hole. It is all well in good to SAY they can't receive insurance through the Bill... but if you never bother to check their status then it is simply just an empty promise.

The U.S. Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, and Obama ~ being a Constitutional Lawyer ~ KNOWS THIS.

Hmm if that is the case then why are we having so much problem with closing Gitmo and trying all prisoners of war in our courts. The fact that they are not citizens should not matter according to your interpretation of the Constitution.

Right?

Right?

You can't have it both ways Rethug.

This post should be filed away in the bullshit bin.

This post should be filed away in the bullshit bin.

#29 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-09-11 09:03 PM

That is where we file MOST of your posts Johnny. No need to limit it to just your #29.

" Gays CAN marry.... a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else can. "

Ahhhh...the cruelty response. They can't marry who THEY want, they can only marry who YOU want.

Tell us: if the tables were turned, would you want gay people deciding which rights YOU get?

How about two gay guys and to gay gals marry one another and have 4-ways?

"and have 4-ways?"

What does Cincinnati chili have to do with this?

"What does Cincinnati chili have to do with this?"

Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-13 04:58 PM

One helluva lot less than Crisco, KY jelly and Viagra.