PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama's looking foolish at this point


HonestChieffan
08-21-2009, 06:24 PM
Why does Obama keep saying their is no govt paid abortions in the house bill, and why does he keep saying its revenue neutral, and why does he keep talking about keeping what you have if you like it.....the man is digging ever deeper by either not knowing what the house bill says or he just thinks he can say these things ofen enough they suddenly become true?

I hate to say it but Sarah Palin right now in her comments today makes a lot more sence than the President does. Im not a Palin supporter but lory, she at least seems to "get it" and Obama and all his goofy buddies seem to just have no clue whatsoever.

Does it bother the left that Sarah Palin of all people is making Obama look so out of touch and uninformed on the very bill he seems bound and determined to force down the public gullet? Or the other view, Obama is making Palin look pretty sharp....

Reaper16
08-21-2009, 06:42 PM
http://memegenerator.net/Content/Images/Instances/737/Conspiracy-Psyduck-The-cake-Is-a-pie.jpg

***SPRAYER
08-21-2009, 07:28 PM
Why does Obama keep saying their is no govt paid abortions in the house bill, and why does he keep saying its revenue neutral, and why does he keep talking about keeping what you have if you like it.....the man is digging ever deeper by either not knowing what the house bill says or he just thinks he can say these things ofen enough they suddenly become true?

I hate to say it but Sarah Palin right now in her comments today makes a lot more sence than the President does. Im not a Palin supporter but lory, she at least seems to "get it" and Obama and all his goofy buddies seem to just have no clue whatsoever.

Does it bother the left that Sarah Palin of all people is making Obama look so out of touch and uninformed on the very bill he seems bound and determined to force down the public gullet? Or the other view, Obama is making Palin look pretty sharp....

He doesn't know what he's doing. He just keeps making the shit up as he goes along.

Only 3 years and 5 months to go.

jAZ
08-21-2009, 11:49 PM
Why does Obama keep saying their is no govt paid abortions in the house bill, and why does he keep saying its revenue neutral, and why does he keep talking about keeping what you have if you like it.....the man is digging ever deeper by either not knowing what the house bill says or he just thinks he can say these things ofen enough they suddenly become true?
This should be good.

You need to provide a quote here proving Obama wrong.

Let's see what you got.

chiefzilla1501
08-21-2009, 11:51 PM
The problem is that I think Obama is learning about why American politics are so fucking stupid.

Deep down, I think he wants to do things in a bipartisan fashion. But politicians are a bunch of whiny brats when they don't get that way. I don't completely fault Obama. I think it's more a symptom of our shitty political system than anything.

J Diddy
08-22-2009, 09:32 AM
He doesn't know what he's doing. He just keeps making the shit up as he goes along.

Only 7 years and 5 months to go.

FYP

I'd call you a bush lover but we both know you don't roll that way.

BigRedChief
08-22-2009, 09:35 AM
This should be good.

You need to provide a quote here proving Obama wrong.

Let's see what you got.
We are waiting.
http://thestockmasters.com/images/judge-smails-hat.gif

Wyndex
08-22-2009, 09:38 AM
yeah it doesn't make much sence at all

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 09:51 AM
This should be good.

You need to provide a quote here proving Obama wrong.

Let's see what you got.

Good luck. I posted in 2 separate threads about the nonsense of abortion funding in the bill, one of those was hcf's thread and he completely ignored it. I am pretty confidant he doesn't know what he is talking about and is just spewing talking points.

BigRedChief
08-22-2009, 09:51 AM
the man is digging ever deeper by either not knowing what the house bill says or he just thinks he can say these things ofen enough they suddenly become true?
Thats the Rove playbook. Keep repeating the lie until it becomes true. The Republicans have accomplished this in part on the health care debate. So they have dinged the president, has this really benefited America?

BS lies:
The government is going to dictate pulling the plug on Grandma
Illegal immigrants will get health insurance
The Federal Government will pay for abortions

Total BS now believed by too damn many gullible people. I guess we get what we deserve. The majority of people in the US know more about whats happening with Jessica Simpson and Brittany Spears than whats really in the biill. :shake:

BucEyedPea
08-22-2009, 10:06 AM
Never TRUST a REFORM (er)!

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 10:18 AM
Post a quote to prove what? Jeeze jaz, you are smarter than that. How many times has Obama said revenue neutral? This proposal is anything but revenue neutral. The abortion point is clear as a bell, and the entire issue of keeping what you have is pretty much been tossed aside by the house bill.

You need a link to engage in that discussion?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Post a quote to prove what? Jeeze jaz, you are smarter than that. How many times has Obama said revenue neutral? This proposal is anything but revenue neutral. The abortion point is clear as a bell, and the entire issue of keeping what you have is pretty much been tossed aside by the house bill.

You need a link to engage in that discussion?

He sounds like patteeu at times....demanding a link for the obvious.

BigRedChief
08-22-2009, 10:21 AM
Post a quote to prove what? Jeeze jaz, you are smarter than that. How many times has Obama said revenue neutral? This proposal is anything but revenue neutral. The abortion point is clear as a bell, and the entire issue of keeping what you have is pretty much been tossed aside by the house bill.

You need a link to engage in that discussion?
I call BS. Prove to me where in the bill, any bill where it says the government will pay for abortions.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 10:26 AM
I call BS. Prove to me where in the bill, any bill where it says the government will pay for abortions.

Call BS all you want. Is it so difficult for you Obots to recognize the truth? My god this is beyond silly.

BigRedChief
08-22-2009, 10:34 AM
Call BS all you want. Is it so difficult for you Obots to recognize the truth? My god this is beyond silly.
The evidence doesn't exsist thats why you can't provide it. It's totally made up bull crap. If its a "truth" beyond a reasonable doubt then it should be easy to provide the evidence?

I can't provide evidence that something doesn't exsist.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 10:36 AM
This should be good.

You need to provide a quote here proving Obama wrong.

Let's see what you got.

1) Abortion: If it is not specifically excluded a court can interpret that it is included. It would have to clear the hurdle of whether or not the Hyde amendment applies, but it is odd that attempts to specifically raise the issue of excluding abortion coverage for this very reason -- a proposal that was brought by Democrats, BTW -- was not adopted by the Dems.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/01/conservative-democrats-warn-against-funding-abortion-in-healthcare-reform.html

FactCheck.org reaffirms this point by showing that while Obama is technically correct in saying that the bill doesn't require funding it does allow the funding in public plans. They conclude that his insistence that such a claim is one of the "fabrications" he rails against isn't accurate.

http://m.factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-health-care-news-conference/

2) There are many articles that detail analysis from the CBO that indicates that the House bill, as written, will add more than $200 billion to the deficit (including the letter from the CBO to Rep. Rangel below). That's if you accept the 10-year projections -- something that should be questioned given the administration's track record on the impact of the stimulus (unemployment will be limited to 8.0% -- it's now 9.4%) or the operation of "cash for clunkers". That program was supposed to operate from a fund of $1 billion (and ended up needing $3 billion to operate for a shorter period of time). It also doesn't factor in what occurs AFTER the ten-year period that Obamacare arbitrarily sets -- after the initial term the system will have to support the majority of the baby-boomer influx. So while he has a piece of paper that says it will generate a profit (!?!) you have to ignore independent analysis to believe it.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25104.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html

3) He keeps saying you can keep the plan you want but the bill as written enables you to stay in, for example, your current employer plan while simultaneoulsy incentivizing your employer to drop that same plan. Obama is accurate that you can keep your plan -- but he can make no guarantee that the plan will still be offered if the bill is enacted. They're proposing penalties against companies that do this, of course, but there is no guarantee that the bottom-line -- even with these penalties -- will not be less than simply allowing employees to move to the government health care option.

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/

Now, all that said, Obama could get the final House bill and decide to not sign it. But the House bill doesn't do some of the basic things he's requiring it do (at least according to independent analysis).

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 10:37 AM
I love the way all the O-bots think they know whats in HR 3200. Like they have actually read it, or more importantly, understand it.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 10:39 AM
I love the way all the O-bots think they know whats in HR 3200. Like they have actually read it, or more importantly, understand it.

They know what they are told.

BigRedChief
08-22-2009, 11:07 AM
1) Abortion: If it is not specifically excluded a court can interpret that it is included. It would have to clear the hurdle of whether or not the Hyde amendment applies, but it is odd that attempts to specifically raise the issue of excluding abortion coverage for this very reason -- a proposal that was brought by Democrats, BTW -- was not adopted by the Dems.
So it doesn't specfically exclude abortion payments = It really funds them. What a leap of faulty thinking. I bet it doesn't specifically exclude breast enlargement surgery either. Does that mean its now also included?

RedNeckRaider
08-22-2009, 11:13 AM
I love the way all the O-bots think they know whats in HR 3200. Like they have actually read it, or more importantly, understand it.

Who are the men in your sig

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 11:16 AM
See what I mean. There is not one word in the bill about funding abortion so because it doesn't say it means it exists. hcf you better get better talking points from hannity and rush.

BTW as I have stated repeatedly I am all for not funding abortions and would have perhaps supported the Hatch amendment. The only problem is what do you do about abortions that are medically necessary and are a legitimate health concern?

KC Dan
08-22-2009, 11:23 AM
I think that Palin (she's a cartoon) has nothing to do with anything here. Obama is looking foolish because let's face it - he is NOT a leader. He has never been one and never will be. He is just as beholden to special interests and lobbyists as any other politician while he speaks that he isn't. Leaders can sell ice to eskimos and sun to sunbathers. Droves of people who voted for him don't believe anything he or their reps say anymore. Distrust is in the air permeating everything and everyone near Washington.

Leaders inspire trust not destroy it. It really is no surprise. As I said, he has never been a leader. He is a manufactured character.

KC Dan
08-22-2009, 11:26 AM
See what I mean. There is not one word in the bill about funding abortion so because it doesn't say it means it exists. hcf you better get better talking points from hannity and rush.You are absolutely correct. No language to fund it. But, in the typical lobbyist crafted bills of the past 40 years, there is nothing preventing the funding of it. This bill (HR3200) is chock full of loopholes the size of mountains. The bill is just plain bad and should see no light at the end of the day. Burn it.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 11:28 AM
So it doesn't specfically exclude abortion payments = It really funds them. What a leap of faulty thinking. I bet it doesn't specifically exclude breast enlargement surgery either. Does that mean its now also included?

Lets hope not.

RedNeckRaider
08-22-2009, 11:31 AM
See what I mean. There is not one word in the bill about funding abortion so because it doesn't say it means it exists. hcf you better get better talking points from hannity and rush.

BTW as I have stated repeatedly I am all for not funding abortions and would have perhaps supported the Hatch amendment. The only problem is what do you do about abortions that are medically necessary and are a legitimate health concern?

I have not read through the thing, only parts. It seems to me nobody has a ****ing clue be it left or right. One thing is a fact the pharmaceutical cartels are out of control and many people simply cannot afford health care. My concern is Obama has moved so fast spending huge money we flat do not have. What is the big ****ing hurry? he tried to push this shit through as fast as he could and is still trying to. It stinks because of how it is being handled. And **** the right because they have not done a damn thing to improve this situation. The one thing that seems to be missed is the GOVERNMENT IS BROKE and is writing hot checks. Who in their right mind thinks it can afford to pay for this, and where is the money going to come from?

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 11:39 AM
You are absolutely correct. No language to fund it. But, in the typical lobbyist crafted bills of the past 40 years, there is nothing preventing the funding of it. This bill (HR3200) is chock full of loopholes the size of mountains. The bill is just plain bad and should see no light at the end of the day. Burn it.

There is probably nothing in there about penis enlargement either so that will make hcf sad.

KC Dan
08-22-2009, 11:40 AM
There is probably nothing in there about penis enlargement either so that will make hcf sad.:clap: good one.

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 11:41 AM
So it doesn't specifically exclude abortion payments = It really funds them.

yes, this is the truth. while it seems like a leap of faith, it is not with the way this bill is set up. as for your cosmetic surgery analogy, i believe that cosmetic surgery is specifically excluded. i could be wrong there, i'm just going off what i can remember hearing on democracynow.


oh even better, they want to tax boob jobs to help pay for it, lol...

http://astrology.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/should-boob-jobs-help-fund-health-care-reform-500188/

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 11:43 AM
I have not read through the thing, only parts. It seems to me nobody has a ****ing clue be it left or right. One thing is a fact the pharmaceutical cartels are out of control and many people simply cannot afford health care. My concern is Obama has moved so fast spending huge money we flat do not have. What is the big ****ing hurry? he tried to push this shit through as fast as he could and is still trying to. It stinks because of how it is being handled. And **** the right because they have not done a damn thing to improve this situation. The one thing that seems to be missed is the GOVERNMENT IS BROKE and is writing hot checks. Who in their right mind thinks it can afford to pay for this, and where is the money going to come from?

My belief is that one of the reasons why there seems such a "hurry" is because this debate has been going on for 50 years. You realize Truman proposed a very similar plan in the early 50's? Was he a socialist or a communist?

I also understand the money concern but what alot of people seem to forget is that in less than 10 years 80 million baby boomers are going to be on Medicare so if we don't fix this now we will definitely be broke soon enough.

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:47 AM
Who are the men in your sig

Bloody Bill Anderson, Jesse James, Paul Quantrill, and Nathan Bedford Forrest---

They were all violent Confederates. Another Civil War is upon us, and I'm trying to make myself numb to it and accept it's inevitable reality.

RedNeckRaider
08-22-2009, 11:47 AM
My belief is that one of the reasons why there seems such a "hurry" is because this debate has been going on for 50 years. You realize Truman proposed a very similar plan in the early 50's? Was he a socialist or a communist?

I also understand the money concern but what alot of people seem to forget is that in less than 10 years 80 million baby boomers are going to be on Medicare so if we don't fix this now we will definitely be broke soon enough.

So the answer to an on going debate that has lasted 50 years is to push an ill prepared slapped together plan through in a couple months?

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 11:47 AM
My belief is that one of the reasons why there seems such a "hurry" is because this debate has been going on for 50 years. You realize Truman proposed a very similar plan in the early 50's? Was he a socialist or a communist?

I also understand the money concern but what alot of people seem to forget is that in less than 10 years 80 million baby boomers are going to be on Medicare so if we don't fix this now we will definitely be broke soon enough.


i'd consider a multi trillion dollar debt pretty broke already.

August 21, 2009
New 10-year Federal Deficit: $9 Trillion, Up from $7 Trillion (http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/21/new-10-year-federal-deficit-9-trillion-up-from-7-trillion/)


The Obama Office of Management and Budget tells Fox the federal deficit over the next decade is projected to be $2 trillion higher than previous estimates.
The new 10-year aggregate federal deficit is $9 trillion.
An official said the prolonged recession and the ensuing decline in federal revenue prompted a recalibration of the deficit numbers.
The numbers also reflect a projection that post-recession economic growth may not be as robust as after previous recessions, the official said.


http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/21/new-10-year-federal-deficit-9-trillion-up-from-7-trillion/

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 11:48 AM
So the answer to an on going debate that has lasted 50 years is to push an ill prepared slapped together plan through in a couple months?

welcome to obamerica

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 11:49 AM
So the answer to an on going debate that has lasted 50 years is to push an ill prepared slapped together plan through in a couple months?

No. I don't want this bill either and they need to go back to the drawing board. I don't think this current bill as any chance of passing.

But that doesn't change the fact we need to reform how we pay for health care.

mlyonsd
08-22-2009, 11:51 AM
See what I mean. There is not one word in the bill about funding abortion so because it doesn't say it means it exists. hcf you better get better talking points from hannity and rush.



That's just jim dandy you're so sure. The fact the language was pulled from bills on more than one occasion makes us that are really paying attention think otherwise though.

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 11:51 AM
i'd consider a multi trillion dollar debt pretty broke already.

August 21, 2009
New 10-year Federal Deficit: $9 Trillion, Up from $7 Trillion (http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/21/new-10-year-federal-deficit-9-trillion-up-from-7-trillion/)


The Obama Office of Management and Budget tells Fox the federal deficit over the next decade is projected to be $2 trillion higher than previous estimates.
The new 10-year aggregate federal deficit is $9 trillion.
An official said the prolonged recession and the ensuing decline in federal revenue prompted a recalibration of the deficit numbers.
The numbers also reflect a projection that post-recession economic growth may not be as robust as after previous recessions, the official said.


http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/21/new-10-year-federal-deficit-9-trillion-up-from-7-trillion/

Alot of that is related to the economy. If the economy turns around then I think that will be alot lower. I am hoping anyway

RedNeckRaider
08-22-2009, 11:52 AM
No. I don't want this bill either and they need to go back to the drawing board. I don't think this current bill as any chance of passing.

But that doesn't change the fact we need to reform how we pay for health care.

Agreed

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 11:52 AM
That's just jim dandy you're so sure. The fact the language was pulled from bills on more than one occasion makes us that are really paying attention think otherwise though.

Go read the bill and see if it says anything about funding abortion. Good luck on that.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 11:55 AM
So it doesn't specfically exclude abortion payments = It really funds them. What a leap of faulty thinking. I bet it doesn't specifically exclude breast enlargement surgery either. Does that mean its now also included?

Depends on if breast augmentation is part of "family planning services".

RedNeckRaider
08-22-2009, 11:57 AM
Go read the bill and see if it says anything about funding abortion. Good luck on that.

No shit the idiots who wrote it dont even know the answer to that

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 11:58 AM
Go read the bill and see if it says anything about funding abortion. Good luck on that.

good luck finding anything, or good luck reading the bill?

it doesn't say anything about funding abortion, but repeated attempts to specifically exclude the funding of abortion, have been blocked. it doesn't take a genius to see that they don't want to exclude funding abortions. why wouldn't you want to include language to exclude a controversial procedure, unless you were in hopes somewhere down the line it would be included? as stated, it makes those of us acutually paying attention question things.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 11:58 AM
See what I mean. There is not one word in the bill about funding abortion so because it doesn't say it means it exists. hcf you better get better talking points from hannity and rush.

BTW as I have stated repeatedly I am all for not funding abortions and would have perhaps supported the Hatch amendment. The only problem is what do you do about abortions that are medically necessary and are a legitimate health concern?

Not according to FactCheck.org -- but I guess you know better than them... :rolleyes:

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:00 PM
No. I don't want this bill either and they need to go back to the drawing board. I don't think this current bill as any chance of passing.

But that doesn't change the fact we need to reform how we pay for health care.

I agree 100% with you. Obamacare is not the answer.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:01 PM
Alot of that is related to the economy. If the economy turns around then I think that will be alot lower. I am hoping anyway

What happens if we're 5 years into Obamacare and we have another recession? How do we fill the hole that would then be created by the less-than-expected tax revenues? More taxes? Less service? Higher debt? None of the politicians who support this bill seem to have an answer.

RedNeckRaider
08-22-2009, 12:02 PM
I agree 100% with you. Obamacare is not the answer.

This guy is left all the way but admits there is work to be done. This approach is how things get done. Some day I hope the left and the right can do the same

KC Dan
08-22-2009, 12:09 PM
Alot of that is related to the economy. If the economy turns around then I think that will be alot lower. I am hoping anywayAs my pops said "Hope (wish) in one hand, S*hit in the other and see which one fills up first"

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:09 PM
Go read the bill and see if it says anything about funding abortion. Good luck on that.

I know this is a lot to digest but have bolded the relevant sections that answer your questions.

I would hope that you could concede that the people doing this independent analysis are more familiar with the bill than any of us and I hope you find their attribution sufficient. Click on the link if you want lots of links to the data used to arrive at these conclusions that yes, the bill does allow for the funding of abotions:


Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.

August 21, 2009

Summary
Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"?

President Obama said Wednesday that’s "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

Analysis
Obama’s "Fabrications" Remark

Obama’s remarks Wednesday came during a telephone conference call to thousands of listeners, organized by religious organizations supporting his health care proposals. He said that "there has been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness." And then he lumped in abortion coverage at the end of a list of claims that he branded as untrue:

Obama, Aug. 19: We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been. And that’s why we’re seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. You’ve heard some of them. Ludicrous ideas. Let me just give you one example, this notion that we are somehow setting up "death panels" that would decide on whether elderly people get to live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie. This is based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse you if you wanted counseling on how to set up a living will or other end of life decisions. Entirely voluntary, it gives you an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers already exercise. That’s the kind of distortion that we’ve been hearing too much of out here.

We’ve heard that this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal aliens. That’s not true. There’s a specific provision in the bill that does not provide health insurance for those individuals. You’ve heard that there’s a government takeover of health care. That’s not true. You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all, these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

The White House did not post any transcript of the president’s words, but sponsors of the conference call, a coalition of faith-based groups supporting an overhaul of the health insurance system, posted the full audio of the president’s call on its Web site. His words come near the very end of the recording, and we transcribed them from the recording.

Abortion foes quickly denounced Obama’s statement as untrue. The NRLC’s Johnson said "the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions." And our analysis shows that Johnson’s statement is correct. Though we of course take no position on whether the legislation should allow or not allow coverage for abortions, the House bill does just that.

The House leadership’s bill (H.R. 3200) actually made no mention of abortion when it was introduced. Johnson refers to an amendment to the bill adopted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee July 30. Abortion rights proponents characterize it as a compromise, but it hasn’t satisfied the anti-abortion side. Offered by Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California, the amendment was approved narrowly by the committee, 30 - 28, with most but not all Democrats voting in favor and no Republicans backing it. The Capps amendment states that some abortions "shall" be covered by the "public option" plan, specifically those types of abortions that Congress allows to be covered under Medicaid, under the so-called "Hyde Amendment," which has been attached regularly to appropriations bills for many years. These are abortions performed in cases or rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

As for other types of abortions, the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing" abortion services that would not be legal for Medicaid coverage. Says the NRLC’s Johnson: "The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions. … [F]rom day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will."

We can’t say what anyone will do in the future. But Obama himself said on July 17, 2007, that "[i]n my mind, reproductive care is essential care" and would be covered by his public insurance plan. He was addressing Planned Parenthood:

Obama, July 17, 2007: We’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we’re putting more money into preventive care.

Obama did not use the word "abortion," but a spokesman for the campaign said later that abortion would be included, according to the Chicago Tribune. The NRLC has posted an unedited video of Obama’s response on YouTube (along with some comments which are the group’s opinions and not necessarily those of anyone at FactCheck.org).

Public Funds

The Capps amendment does contain a statement – as we noted in an earlier article – that prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. That would still allow the public plan to cover all abortions, so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers. The Capps language also would allow private plans purchased with federal subsidies ("affordability credits" for low-income families and workers) to cover abortion.

Broader language was contained in an amendment offered by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan the day after the Capps amendment was approved. The Stupak amendment would have overruled Capps and prohibited government funding of "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The Stupak amendment was rejected by the committee 27 - 31.

Supporters of abortion rights argue that this would cause some women who now have abortion coverage to lose it, by forcing private insurance companies to drop abortion coverage from plans so that they can be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. For example, NARAL Pro-Choice America states:

NARAL: Anti-choice members of Congress aren’t satisfied with the Capps compromise. They want to impose a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health-insurance market by prohibiting such coverage in the new health-care system – thus taking away coverage from women who already have it.

We can’t predict how many insurance plans might be affected by the Stupak language. And we take no stand on whether all abortions should or should not be covered.

As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.

– by Brooks Jackson


http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/


You people who claim to know what the bill says really don't have a clue what the bill says do you?

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:12 PM
This guy is left all the way but admits there is work to be done. This approach is how things get done. Some day I hope the left and the right can do the same

Yes -- the reason we didn't get social security reform is because Bush and Co. didn't actively include Dems in the process. Now you can say that the two sides were on opposite ends of the spectrum (true) but something like that (or health care) should be steamrolled by one party lest they want to lose their power.

The Dems have consistently refused to incorporate ideas that have been proffered by Repbulicans that WOULD benefit the system. They have also decided to embrace points that have shown they DO NOT work largely on ideological grounds (which, BTW, is their right to try since they won the election).

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 12:12 PM
No shit the idiots who wrote it dont even know the answer to that

There is probably alot of loopholes like penis enlargement and anal hole reduction

good luck finding anything, or good luck reading the bill?

it doesn't say anything about funding abortion, but repeated attempts to specifically exclude the funding of abortion, have been blocked. it doesn't take a genius to see that they don't want to exclude funding abortions. why wouldn't you want to include language to exclude a controversial procedure, unless you were in hopes somewhere down the line it would be included? as stated, it makes those of us acutually paying attention question things.

The only problem I have with putting something specific in the bill is what about medically necessary abortions? No one has yet explained that to me.

Not according to FactCheck.org -- but I guess you know better than them... :rolleyes:

In your own post on #17 you said it wasn't in the bill so wtf are you talking about?

What happens if we're 5 years into Obamacare and we have another recession? How do we fill the hole that would then be created by the less-than-expected tax revenues? More taxes? Less service? Higher debt? None of the politicians who support this bill seem to have an answer.

What are we going to do about Medicare during a recession?

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 12:13 PM
This guy is left all the way but admits there is work to be done. This approach is how things get done. Some day I hope the left and the right can do the same

and ruin the good thing they got right now? never. they can vote for or against something and then just blame the other side when things blow up. pass the buck, and shed any responsibility, its the way washington works, and its how these fucks keep getting elected.

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 12:16 PM
The only problem I have with putting something specific in the bill is what about medically necessary abortions? No one has yet explained that to me

ummm, forgive the laymen wording but "unless the mother's life is in danger" i don't know something like that? even then there are people with a moral or religious issue with the procedure. they shouldn't have to pay for it.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:16 PM
In your own post on #17 you said it wasn't in the bill so wtf are you talking about?

Not exactly what I said.

Read the post from the source I quoted. It's in there. Unless you don't believe the bill, Obama, and the Democrat who proposed language that would have limited the instances in which abortion is covered.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:18 PM
What are we going to do about Medicare during a recession?


Good point since this is sort of what they want to hoist on all of us. And it's going bankrupt. But nice non-answer.

Obama says Medicare is a great program but then quotes that there is about $500 billion waste in the program. It's comical how this guy talks out of both sides of his mouth.

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 12:18 PM
The truth is that bills now before Congress donít require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent.

This is all you really need to post. IMO reproductive services could mean alot of things such as birth control. Could it mean abortions I guess but they should clarify it.

Listen as I have stated many times before I am all for not funding abortions in this bill unless it is medically necessary.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:18 PM
ummm, forgive the laymen wording but "unless the mother's life is in danger" i don't know something like that? even then there are people with a moral or religious issue with the procedure. they shouldn't have to pay for it.

They don't. It's in there.

Read the FactCheck link.

You asked to see evidence that it was in there and it is...

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:20 PM
This is all you really need to post. IMO reproductive services could mean alot of things such as birth control. Could it mean abortions I guess but they should clarify it.

Listen as I have stated many times before I am all for not funding abortions in this bill unless it is medically necessary.

Wow.

If you read the whole bill or even the whole post you might actually educate yourself regarding what it is you're saying.

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 12:22 PM
Good point since this is sort of what they want to hoist on all of us. And it's going bankrupt. But nice non-answer.

Obama says Medicare is a great program but then quotes that there is about $500 billion waste in the program. It's comical how this guy talks out of both sides of his mouth.

It is a non-answer because I don't know but I assume it would be the same with Medicare or SS. Less people working means less money coming in.

ummm, forgive the laymen wording but "unless the mother's life is in danger" i don't know something like that? even then there are people with a moral or religious issue with the procedure. they shouldn't have to pay for it.

I could see that but that is still a little broad and could easily be gotten around.

Listen I enjoy debating everyone on this but I have to go but I don't want anyone to think I was quitting the debate. I will catch up on this later when I get back.

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 12:23 PM
it just seems to me the easiest way to silence the critics on the abortion issue would be to exclude it. attempts have been made, attempts have been shot down. now the only question is WHY the attempts are being shot down.

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 12:24 PM
It is a non-answer because I don't know but I assume it would be the same with Medicare or SS. Less people working means less money coming in.



I could see that but that is still a little broad and could easily be gotten around.

Listen I enjoy debating everyone on this but I have to go but I don't want anyone to think I was quitting the debate. I will catch up on this later when I get back.

hey i said it was layman's terms, see you later quitter.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:26 PM
This is all you really need to post. IMO reproductive services could mean alot of things such as birth control. Could it mean abortions I guess but they should clarify it.

Listen as I have stated many times before I am all for not funding abortions in this bill unless it is medically necessary.

You can't even finish the next sentence?

But itís equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so itís likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that.

Given that Democrats have added language that specifically prohibits the prohibition or curtailing of providing abortion services that would be illegal under Medicaid and given the fact that Democrats in Congress tried to specifically prohibit it (and were shot down by fellow Democrats) I would hope you can see the ultimate destination of where the bill takes us vis-a-vis this issue.

Go back and read the post that you asked me to post. Don't disregard it because it doesn't conform to what you want to believe is or isn't in the bill.

dirk digler
08-22-2009, 12:27 PM
Wow.

If you read the whole bill or even the whole post you might actually educate yourself regarding what it is you're saying.

Ok I did read through it again and I will concede that with the Capps amendment that certain abortions will be covered which are covered under Medicaid because of they Hyde amendment. But that is totally different than women doing convenience abortions and that should cover medically necessary abortions as well.

I was wrong.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 12:29 PM
They have not dealt with elective surury as a unit at all. No electives should be paid for by tax dollars. None. Zero. But we know that wont happen, the govt will be paying for every C-section that is asked for regardless of why. and a ton of others as well. That will use money needed for the elderly and they will get benefits reduced.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:29 PM
it just seems to me the easiest way to silence the critics on the abortion issue would be to exclude it. attempts have been made, attempts have been shot down. now the only question is WHY the attempts are being shot down.

Not only have attempts made by DEMOCRATS been shot down, but the liberal Dems have specifically added language that would enable the public option to provide financing for abortion in the future even if it is illegal under the Medicaid provisions.

TEX
08-22-2009, 12:32 PM
Why does Obama keep saying their is no govt paid abortions in the house bill, and why does he keep saying its revenue neutral, and why does he keep talking about keeping what you have if you like it.....the man is digging ever deeper by either not knowing what the house bill says or he just thinks he can say these things ofen enough they suddenly become true?

I hate to say it but Sarah Palin right now in her comments today makes a lot more sence than the President does. Im not a Palin supporter but lory, she at least seems to "get it" and Obama and all his goofy buddies seem to just have no clue whatsoever.

Does it bother the left that Sarah Palin of all people is making Obama look so out of touch and uninformed on the very bill he seems bound and determined to force down the public gullet? Or the other view, Obama is making Palin look pretty sharp....

Oh oh, now someone is gonna snitch on you and turn you in to the government...LOL!

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:33 PM
Ok I did read through it again and I will concede that with the Capps amendment that certain abortions will be covered which are covered under Medicaid because of they Hyde amendment. But that is totally different than women doing convenience abortions and that should cover medically necessary abortions as well.

I was wrong.

:clap:

What I think worries a lot of people about this bill are these very things. Because not only were amendments proposed that would have insured this but others were inserted that specifically allow HHS to determine if other abortions will be made available -- even if they are currently illegal under Medicaid. Again, it's in there. It's not just the language that's operative when the bill is signed that is a concern. It's the new openings that are created to do this stuff down the road. And the only reason it is written this way is so Obama can say it isn't in there and be "technically" correct.

But thank you for your willingness to at least read an independent analysis of the bill.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:36 PM
They have not dealt with elective surury as a unit at all. No electives should be paid for by tax dollars. None. Zero. But we know that wont happen, the govt will be paying for every C-section that is asked for regardless of why. and a ton of others as well. That will use money needed for the elderly and they will get benefits reduced.

Tort reform = less tests/elective procedures = cost savings.

I agree with Dem strategist Bob Beckell that Obama/Dems should compromise by tossing the personal injury lawyers overboard and including meaningful tort reform as part of the bill. But it's another good Republican idea that would actually benefit Americans that isn't being considered because of political considerations.

ClevelandBronco
08-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Alot of that is related to the economy. If the economy turns around then I think that will be alot lower. I am hoping anyway

I understand. You voted for "hope."

BigRedChief
08-22-2009, 12:41 PM
No. I don't want this bill either and they need to go back to the drawing board. I don't think this current bill as any chance of passing.

But that doesn't change the fact we need to reform how we pay for health care.
This!

BigRedChief
08-22-2009, 12:50 PM
Listen as I have stated many times before I am all for not funding abortions in this bill unless it is medically necessary.
I'm against a single federal penny being used to fund abortions even in case of medical necessaity. We should create a privately funded voluntary fund for those that can't afford the procedure.

The people who object to abortion on moral grounds have a right to not have their tax money used for such a procedure. I know its a slippery slope. Welll I object to the Iraq war on moral frounds etc. but I don't see a problem with funding and its such a hot buton issue. Seems to me a comprimise that will work for both sides.

Donger
08-22-2009, 12:50 PM
This should be good.

You need to provide a quote here proving Obama wrong.

Let's see what you got.

It's not like they are hiding it, jAZ, and I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the Democrats would favor abortions under the public option.

Donger
08-22-2009, 12:52 PM
I know this is a lot to digest but have bolded the relevant sections that answer your questions.

I would hope that you could concede that the people doing this independent analysis are more familiar with the bill than any of us and I hope you find their attribution sufficient. Click on the link if you want lots of links to the data used to arrive at these conclusions that yes, the bill does allow for the funding of abotions:


Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.

August 21, 2009

Summary
Will health care legislation mean "government funding of abortion"?

President Obama said Wednesday thatís "not true" and among several "fabrications" being spread by "people who are bearing false witness." But abortion foes say itís the president whoís making a false claim. "President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component" of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?

The truth is that bills now before Congress donít require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But itís equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so itís likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

Analysis
Obamaís "Fabrications" Remark

Obamaís remarks Wednesday came during a telephone conference call to thousands of listeners, organized by religious organizations supporting his health care proposals. He said that "there has been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness." And then he lumped in abortion coverage at the end of a list of claims that he branded as untrue:

Obama, Aug. 19: We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been. And thatís why weíre seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. Youíve heard some of them. Ludicrous ideas. Let me just give you one example, this notion that we are somehow setting up "death panels" that would decide on whether elderly people get to live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie. This is based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse you if you wanted counseling on how to set up a living will or other end of life decisions. Entirely voluntary, it gives you an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers already exercise. Thatís the kind of distortion that weíve been hearing too much of out here.

Weíve heard that this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal aliens. Thatís not true. Thereís a specific provision in the bill that does not provide health insurance for those individuals. Youíve heard that thereís a government takeover of health care. Thatís not true. Youíve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all, these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brotherís keeper, I am my sisterís keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

The White House did not post any transcript of the presidentís words, but sponsors of the conference call, a coalition of faith-based groups supporting an overhaul of the health insurance system, posted the full audio of the presidentís call on its Web site. His words come near the very end of the recording, and we transcribed them from the recording.

Abortion foes quickly denounced Obamaís statement as untrue. The NRLCís Johnson said "the bill backed by the White House (H.R. 3200) explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions." And our analysis shows that Johnsonís statement is correct. Though we of course take no position on whether the legislation should allow or not allow coverage for abortions, the House bill does just that.

The House leadershipís bill (H.R. 3200) actually made no mention of abortion when it was introduced. Johnson refers to an amendment to the bill adopted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee July 30. Abortion rights proponents characterize it as a compromise, but it hasnít satisfied the anti-abortion side. Offered by Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California, the amendment was approved narrowly by the committee, 30 - 28, with most but not all Democrats voting in favor and no Republicans backing it. The Capps amendment states that some abortions "shall" be covered by the "public option" plan, specifically those types of abortions that Congress allows to be covered under Medicaid, under the so-called "Hyde Amendment," which has been attached regularly to appropriations bills for many years. These are abortions performed in cases or rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

As for other types of abortions, the Capps amendment leaves it to the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether or not they will be covered. It says, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing" abortion services that would not be legal for Medicaid coverage. Says the NRLCís Johnson: "The Capps Amendment MANDATES that the public plan cover any Medicaid-fundable abortions, and AUTHORIZES the secretary to cover all other abortions. Ö [F]rom day one, she [Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] is authorized to pay for them all. And, she will."

We canít say what anyone will do in the future. But Obama himself said on July 17, 2007, that "[i]n my mind, reproductive care is essential care" and would be covered by his public insurance plan. He was addressing Planned Parenthood:

Obama, July 17, 2007: Weíre going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they donít have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that weíre putting more money into preventive care.

Obama did not use the word "abortion," but a spokesman for the campaign said later that abortion would be included, according to the Chicago Tribune. The NRLC has posted an unedited video of Obamaís response on YouTube (along with some comments which are the groupís opinions and not necessarily those of anyone at FactCheck.org).

Public Funds

The Capps amendment does contain a statement Ė as we noted in an earlier article Ė that prohibits the use of public money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. That would still allow the public plan to cover all abortions, so long as the plans took in enough private money in the form of premiums paid by individuals or their employers. The Capps language also would allow private plans purchased with federal subsidies ("affordability credits" for low-income families and workers) to cover abortion.

Broader language was contained in an amendment offered by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan the day after the Capps amendment was approved. The Stupak amendment would have overruled Capps and prohibited government funding of "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The Stupak amendment was rejected by the committee 27 - 31.

Supporters of abortion rights argue that this would cause some women who now have abortion coverage to lose it, by forcing private insurance companies to drop abortion coverage from plans so that they can be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. For example, NARAL Pro-Choice America states:

NARAL: Anti-choice members of Congress arenít satisfied with the Capps compromise. They want to impose a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health-insurance market by prohibiting such coverage in the new health-care system Ė thus taking away coverage from women who already have it.

We canít predict how many insurance plans might be affected by the Stupak language. And we take no stand on whether all abortions should or should not be covered.

As for the House bill as it stands now, itís a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.

Ė by Brooks Jackson


http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/


You people who claim to know what the bill says really don't have a clue what the bill says do you?

I'm sure that jAZ appreciates the education.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm against a single federal penny being used to fund abortions even in case of medical necessaity. We should create a privately funded voluntary fund for those that can't afford the procedure.

The people who object to abortion in moral grounds have a right to not have their tax money used for such a procedure. I know its a slippery slope. Welll I object to the Iraq war on moral frounds etc. but U don't see a problem with funding and irs such a hot buton issue. Seems to me a comprimise that will work for both sides.

I appreciate the POV on both sides.

I only point these things out because it is, in fact, Obama and the Dems who are trying to confuse the issue with a bill that talks out of both sides of its mouth. My problem is with the proposed legislation.

It is humorous that those who support Obama and Obamacare are quick to say "prove it" when faced with these questions but only Dirk is man enough to admit that the claims that there isn't coverage included/contemplated are just factually wrong.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 01:12 PM
Sorry -- didn't mean to kill another thread with facts...

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 01:13 PM
I'm sure that jAZ appreciates the education.

Like sunlight to a vampire...

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 01:59 PM
Yes -- the reason we didn't get social security reform is because Bush and Co. didn't actively include Dems in the process. Now you can say that the two sides were on opposite ends of the spectrum (true) but something like that (or health care) should be steamrolled by one party lest they want to lose their power.

No.

The reason we didn't get SS reform is the ****ing idiot laid down on the ONE issue he promised prior to the 00 election. The main reason I voted for him in 00. The entire proposal was a sham.

Should have just twisted arms in the Senate until they broke or until he got what he wanted. But he was falling in the polls like a stone due the war and he caved to AARP and other interests.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 02:22 PM
No.

The reason we didn't get SS reform is the ****ing idiot laid down on the ONE issue he promised prior to the 00 election. The main reason I voted for him in 00. The entire proposal was a sham.

Should have just twisted arms in the Senate until they broke or until he got what he wanted. But he was falling in the polls like a stone due the war and he caved to AARP and other interests.

Didn't have the votes my friend! Partially because of the reasons you cited.

If we are going to blow a trillion dollars on something, however, I would still favor social security reform over subsidizing more federal heath care.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 03:43 PM
Didn't have the votes my friend! Partially because of the reasons you cited.

If we are going to blow a trillion dollars on something, however, I would still favor social security reform over subsidizing more federal heath care.

You have to go deeper to determine why he didn't have the votes. He was dying on the vine as the war became a huge mess.

Had he gone about the business in the first 100/200 days, it would have happened. But in truth, it was just a carrot to get voters. It worked.

Baby Lee
08-22-2009, 05:21 PM
The only problem I have with putting something specific in the bill is what about medically necessary abortions? No one has yet explained that to me.
It's right next to the California rule that marijuana prescriptions must be medically necessary. ;)

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 06:49 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/diversitylane_campers.jpg