sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-10-09 01:12 AM
Response to Original message |
| 31. It's what could happen under this legislation |
|
The belief is that nobody will want to buy a supplemental abortion policy, otherwise known as the slut who needs so many abortions she has insurance, plan. Consequently it will quickly become unavailable.
Same argument for the private plans. If the insurance company has to duplicate every plan it offers, one with abortion and one without, they'll just not bother offering abortion at all.
That's the argument. I think it has some merit.
I also think it has a simple solution, as I've said. Add voluntary abortion riders to all policies in the country, administered separately. Removes the stigma, separates the money, solves the problem if calmer heads would prevail.
|
| -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
