villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-10-09 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
| 19. Was about to post the same link, and of course, you're wrong -- the language is clear |
|
about the prohibition in Exchanges.
It's on Page Two.
|
| -I've downloaded the full House HealthCare Bill and the Stupak Amendment in .pdf if you want a copy |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:33 AM |
#0 |
 -
I agree with you about the healthcare bill because I have read it, but the stupak ammedment is B.S |
still_one |
Nov-10-09 12:38 AM |
#1 |
| -
That is your opinion. Rep Degette, the Pro-Choice Caucus, |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 12:39 AM |
#2 |
  -
No, it is not my "opinion". The wording is utterly straightforward. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:43 AM |
#3 |
| -
I have read the wording and you are slamming the pro choice groups. |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 12:47 AM |
#5 |
| -
If you read the amendment, you know that you are spreading unjustified fear |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:51 AM |
#8 |
| -
My motives are the same as prochoice America, NOW , Naral, Rep Degette,Rachel Maddow and Sen. |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:03 AM |
#23 |
| -
How do you know your motives are the same? Did you ask them? |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:12 AM |
#32 |
| -
They state their motives regarding this amendment.They are clear. |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:20 AM |
#40 |
| -
Well, they have not stated their motives regarding their misunderstanding of the bill to me |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:32 AM |
#52 |
| -
They aren't misunderstanding. You are. |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:37 AM |
#56 |
| -
No, I am not, as I have easily refuted every contrary point you have raised (n/t) |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:40 AM |
#59 |
| -
And they aren't just my points.You haven't"refuted ".anything |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:49 AM |
#63 |
| -
I'll tell you of what you have convinced me. I am going to write an article on this where i go line |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:52 AM |
#65 |
| -
Bye. I am sure anti choicers will be thrilled. You are so much smarter than NOW! |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:57 AM |
#67 |
| -
Why not just paste the specific language here in the thread, that contradicts what the pro-choice |
villager |
Nov-10-09 12:47 AM |
#4 |
| -
Because whoever created the .pdfs created them as graphics, i.e. they did not OCR the text |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:49 AM |
#6 |
| -
What interest would the Pro-Choice groups have in misrepresnting the Stupak Amendment? |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 12:55 AM |
#14 |
| -
I dont care what is in people's heads, I care what the bill says. (n/t) |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:57 AM |
#18 |
| -
Answer the question. Why would these people be misrepresenting Stupak? |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:09 AM |
#28 |
| -
For the last time, I am not a mindreader |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:11 AM |
#30 |
| -
But do you think they are not capable of reading a n amedment correctly? |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:19 AM |
#38 |
| -
And that is all to which I stipulate. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:33 AM |
#53 |
| -
What I would like to know is what Interest all of the people I mention he thinks |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 12:51 AM |
#7 |
| -
Unlike you, I am not attributing motive to people I have never met. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:53 AM |
#10 |
| -
I am not. I have quoted the text repeatedly and it is very bad. |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:01 AM |
#20 |
| -
yes you have. You have never met me and you attributed multiple motives to me |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:06 AM |
#26 |
| -
My take is that anyone who receives any subsidy from the government |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:12 AM |
#33 |
| -
That is not correct. It specifically says the opposite. Are you intentionally not seeing that? |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:18 AM |
#37 |
| -
I cannot see what is not there. Why are you seemingly defending Stupak? |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:21 AM |
#42 |
| -
A couple of other DUers went on the same tangent today, insisting the pro-choice groups were wrong |
villager |
Nov-10-09 12:54 AM |
# |
| -
Oh brother. Have you read the text? |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:55 AM |
#13 |
| -
so by now you could've quoted here the salient passages, yes? |
villager |
Nov-10-09 12:56 AM |
#15 |
| -
No. But you can read them here |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:57 AM |
#17 |
| -
No kidding. |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:20 AM |
#41 |
| -
They, like you, probably did NOT read the bill and are relying on |
ecstatic |
Nov-10-09 12:01 PM |
#81 |
| -
Find a video of Rachel's show tonight before you argue about this. |
madfloridian |
Nov-10-09 12:52 AM |
#9 |
| -
I have the text in front of me. Why would I trust someone else's interpretation over what I am |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:54 AM |
#11 |
| -
how about a quote or two? To, you know, make your case a slam dunk? |
villager |
Nov-10-09 12:55 AM |
#12 |
| -
Here, I found a link. Have at it... |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 12:56 AM |
#16 |
| -
Was about to post the same link, and of course, you're wrong -- the language is clear |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:00 AM |
#19 |
| -
No, I am not wrong. Which part dont you get? (n/t) |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:01 AM |
#21 |
| -
Read. Page. Two. |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:04 AM |
#24 |
| -
That is not correct. There are two versions of every plan to be offered. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:08 AM |
#27 |
| -
If it's the last section, I think the language in paragraph (1) is clear about the funding |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:18 AM |
#36 |
| -
Once again from my OP |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:02 AM |
#22 |
| -
It's a punitive tax on women, that doesn't currently exist. Why are other DU men |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:05 AM |
#25 |
| -
My OP doesnt address that. It addresses some of the incorrect contentions. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:10 AM |
#29 |
| -
Yes, it changes the fucking status quo, because women whose insurance covered them |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:13 AM |
#34 |
| -
That is absolutely not true. Look, I may be male, but my insurance through my firm covers abortion |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:21 AM |
#43 |
| -
"...if they are going to pay for it themselves." |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:32 AM |
#50 |
| -
The "non-exchange covered slut policies" as you call them are what companies buy for their employees |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:39 AM |
#57 |
| -
Companies will buy extra abortion coverage for their employees? |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:44 AM |
#62 |
| -
I already have abortion coverage, why would I need extra? Do you not understand the concept of the |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:50 AM |
#64 |
| -
do you not understand the concept of one plan costing more than the other? |
villager |
Nov-10-09 02:23 AM |
#68 |
| -
Right!! Stupak doesnt say HCI's can NOT offer abortion insurance they have to offer a rider WITHOUT |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:31 AM |
#74 |
| -
"Why are you defending this" - I'll explain |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:26 AM |
#46 |
| -
Unfortunately ,you are wrong.And many of us, including some who have a vote |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:31 AM |
#48 |
| -
I am not wrong. Every argument you have raised I have easily refuted. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:36 AM |
#55 |
| -
You haven't refuted a darn thing. You just deny and insist your opinion |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:39 AM |
#58 |
| -
Every time you have raised a portion of the language, I have shown you where you were wrong |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:42 AM |
#60 |
| -
Not so. Thank God you don't have any influence or a vote.Just let the Pro-Choice |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:56 AM |
#66 |
| -
It's means the Democratic party took the side of religion over women's rights. |
madfloridian |
Nov-10-09 11:17 AM |
#78 |
| -
The entire bill is a tax increase on men |
lumberjack_jeff |
Nov-10-09 10:09 AM |
#73 |
| -
because it's someone else's interpretation |
nosferaustin |
Nov-10-09 09:37 AM |
#72 |
| -
It's what could happen under this legislation |
sandnsea |
Nov-10-09 01:12 AM |
#31 |
| -
Now that is an interesting contention worth discussing. Thank you. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:16 AM |
#35 |
| -
Oh hey, me too |
sandnsea |
Nov-10-09 01:32 AM |
#51 |
| -
+1, I think you've identified the distinction. |
NYC_SKP |
Nov-10-09 01:19 AM |
#39 |
| -
"solves the problem if calmer heads would prevail." |
Forkboy |
Nov-10-09 01:24 AM |
#44 |
| -
This is a practical example of just "one" of the problems |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:25 AM |
#45 |
| -
+1 |
villager |
Nov-10-09 01:29 AM |
#47 |
| -
That doesnt make sense. |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:31 AM |
#49 |
| -
If you had "read" my post properly you would be able to interpret that this isn't "MY" plan |
saracat |
Nov-10-09 01:36 AM |
#54 |
| -
No, I read your post correctly. Once again, you didnt read the parts of my post that you didnt like |
stevenleser |
Nov-10-09 01:43 AM |
#61 |
| -
K, Stupak sec 236 and Hyde 507 read almost word for word the same why isn't that happening today |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:14 AM |
#71 |
| -
"Calmer heads"? Big putdown when our party just sold out women... |
madfloridian |
Nov-10-09 09:05 AM |
#69 |
| -
There's NO supplemental insurance NOW! Stupak, like Hyde, does NOT prevent the use of ones own money |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:11 AM |
#70 |
| -
NO, it is NOT simple when women are discriminated against and have to Buy |
joeycola |
Nov-10-09 10:37 AM |
#76 |
| -
Total practical solution |
Jennicut |
Nov-10-09 11:25 AM |
#79 |
| -
They sold women out to the religious right. Just like they have done to gays. |
madfloridian |
Nov-10-09 10:34 AM |
#75 |
| -
Thanks Steven. I'll pm you n/t |
firedupdem |
Nov-10-09 10:41 AM |
#77 |
| -
I think you may be missing part of the point |
dccrossman |
Nov-10-09 11:53 AM |
#80 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread