Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, November 15, 2009

What Fonda didn't say -- and what should trouble conservatives about the amendment -- is that it represents exactly what they hate about goverment playing a big role in health care: dictating to citizens what medical procedures they may or may not have. It is the ultimate case of politicians interfering in matters that would otherwise be left to doctors and patients.

It seems totally obvious.

But conservatives are blind about that when it might possibly further their anti-choice agenda.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

mitch

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Obamacre? A land deal?

-Truth is that under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, millions of women would lose benefits they already have and millions more would be prohibited from getting the kind of private sector health care coverage that most women have today.

Yeppers. Why anti-choicers want to be sure that woman cannot even pay for additional coverage for a particular medical procedure out of their own pockets is baffling.... unless one considers that they are attempting to change the status quo Hyde standard without having to go before the SC.

No, but it is a raw deal to be sure, especially for young people who will be raped up the ass so older folks can get cheaper coverage.

#2

Oh how rich! Liberals concerned about patient choice and using their own money to make decisions. This is laughable considering Obamacare is all about the government controlling your life.

-the government controlling your life.

Needs someone to control his life, as the Post Office and public library are doing such a lousy job.

Why anti-choicers want to be sure that woman cannot even pay for additional coverage for a particular medical procedure out of their own pockets is baffling.... unless one considers that they are attempting to change the status quo Hyde standard without having to go before the SC.
#2 | Posted by Corky

Central Point Flag.

Truth is that under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, millions of women would lose benefits they already have and millions more would be prohibited from getting the kind of private sector health care coverage that most women have today.

easy there Corky. you don't want to be accused of stumping for the status quo!

:-(

I haven't paid much attention to this part but clear something up for me.....The Stupak/Pitts Amendment prohibits the public option from offering abortion coverage as an additional option that can be purchased???

#7 Yep.

And, as I understand it, it prohibits the same in any plan that is to be used in the Exchange. Although I'm not as certain about that.

Thanks Corky. I fucking knew that abortion would muddy the water for this whole effort.

Okay, I have to ask....how much does an abortion cost?

lets assume a typical first trimester abortion....

Also, how many private insurers cover this procedure....like Anthem, Aetna, Wellpoint etc?....

The way I understood it was that Stupak also prevents public option participants from securing outside insurance that would cover abortions as well, arguing that essentially uses the PO as a subsidy to be able to purchase the private plan.

Money is fungible. How do you know which dollar bills pay for what?

The fact is, abortion will still be legal, but the one seeking the abortion will have to pay for it.

-Truth is that under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, millions of women would lose benefits they already have and millions more would be prohibited from getting the kind of private sector health care coverage that most women have today.

Let me ask the question another way.......how do you come up with the "millions of women would lose benefits" line?

how do you know that?

I read that it's $350 to $1200, with most private insurers offering abortion coverage, including to the Republican Party until this became news.

The point is that the anti-choicers are trying to change the status quo in law without going before the SC.

I can't even get insurance if not through my work. Pre-exisitng conditions are a bitch. Sorry if I'm not too concerned about abortions being covered under the plan. This is just a bs smokescreen from the right. It won't work assholes.

The point is that the anti-choicers are trying to change the status quo in law without going before the SC.

yes, but that is a half truth.

This didn't need to be in the bill anyway as most ardent abortion rights supporters didn't need this to be in the amendment to get it passed anyway.

Shit, even our resident abortion loving fool, HERM, has admitted that he would support healthcare reform without abortion benefits inside it. It didn't need to be in there.

This is the left's way to pretend (for the benefit of their sheep) that abortion rights are being threatened which is a laugh.

Smokescreen from the right? It was a DEMOCRAT who introduced and got passage of the ammendament in the house. There are 40 Democrats that won't vote for any bill with abortion funding. And yet you Dems still are too concerned about Republicans kicking moderates off the party when you have your own troubles.

You rtards don't want anything govt funded. You only care about lower taxes. That is why you want to fight it tooth and nail. Fuck the poor is the motto of the right. Tax credits isn't gonna help the poor get good coverage and you all know it.

I can't even get insurance if not through my work. Pre-exisitng conditions are a bitch. Sorry if I'm not too concerned about abortions being covered under the plan.

See??? Even Jackass doesn't give a shit whether abortion is included.

He doesn't get the rest of it but I wouldn't expect him to anyway.

What about those with pre-existing conditions which many of the poor have. Tax credits won't help them either.

Member,

forget it. The lefties here are the sheep. You can even hold a mirror up to their faces to show them they are sheep and they will still deny it.

They will insist that the mirror is a republican conspiracy.

Eberly I know that if I lose my job I'll have a way of getting my meds anti-psychotic meds and I'll have a way to get treatment sessions.

Jackass,

Haven't seen you around -- or else I haven't been here myself. Just thought I'd say hello to you. Have to run now. Got lots to do.

"Jackass,

Haven't seen you around"

Consider that a blessing.

Eberly I know that if I lose my job I'll have a way of getting my meds anti-psychotic meds and I'll have a way to get treatment sessions.

I wouldn't say that you "know" anything. At this point, until we have actual legislation in force....it is just a "belief".

In any case, your cobra coverage would give you that care for 18 months so your point is not that great.

Cobra is expensive and with no job there is no way I could afford it. Do try again.

Cobra is expensive

more expensive than the public option?

I don't know and neither do you.

Are premiums going to be rated like private health insurance, but without profit? If they will only take people who can't get private insurance the rates could be high if the gov is trying to break even.

I thought Member stated he was taking a break from the DR. Guess he was lying.

in the early part of the 20th century there was something called the 'wickersham report' concerning prohibition and a poet wrote something like this

"prohibition is an awful flop
we like it
it cant stop what its meant to stop
we like it
it left a trail of death and slime
it wasnt prohibiton worth a dime
its filled our land with graft and crime
none the less, we're for it

replace prohibition with OBAMA HEALTH CARE

and replace graft and crime with
SEIU/AARP/lawyers and it works just as well today

oops sorry

forgot that there isnt much 'nuance' here

you see...this was for people who were against prohibition and they were making fun of people who were against repealing that amendment..
and by substituting those words with healch care reform and the other things..
it shows that dems are nothing new..

I thought Member stated he was taking a break from the DR. Guess he was lying.

He's a rightie. It's all they know how to do. Either that odr his mommy told him to quit playing in her underwear drawer and go play with his friends.

"The House bill contains a highly controversial provision prohibiting abortion coverage for those insured under a new public insurance plan as well as those who received federal subsidies to purchase private insurance. In the poll, 61 percent say they support barring coverage for abortions for those receiving public subsidies, but if private funds were used to pay for abortion expenses, the numbers flipped. With segregated private money used to cover abortion procedures, 56 percent say insurance offered to those using government assistance should be able to include such coverage. "
www.washingtonpost.com

The whole abortion argument is rediculous. Or at least it should be. IMO, very few people are for a total prohibition on abortion. What people are against is abortion on demand. I watch liberals on these boards talk about a woman's right to choose. And I watch conservatives talk about murder. The reality is that abortion is a medical procedure. IMO, the solution to the whole debate is to start treating it as such. This should not be a political issue. The decision to have or not have an abortion should be between the doctor and patient. And it should be based on medical necessity. If a physician refuses to act in good faith when providing the service, he/she will eventually be sanctioned. But if the patient has a real issue, then abortion, like many other medical procedures will be an option to be explored.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable