fasttense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-10-09 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
| 29. You could not buy an abortion rider on your insurance policy unless you made more |
|
than $88,000 a year. The rich seem to be able to do any damn thing they want. Only the poor are held to follow arbitrary and capricious law.
|
| -Can anyone list 3 big differences between the Stupak and the Hyde amendments? |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 06:33 AM |
#0 |
 -
1) It doesn't have to be renewed every year (it's permanent) |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 06:38 AM |
#1 |
  -
For 2, what is the restriction? and for 3 wouldn't the Hyde amendment outlaw any federal funds... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 06:57 AM |
#6 |
| -
You clearly don't WANT to see the differences. |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 06:58 AM |
#7 |
| -
I'm asking question for answers truthful strait forward answers not spin |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 06:59 AM |
#9 |
| -
I gave them to you. |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:00 AM |
#12 |
| -
Your statement was false, the person can buy a rider and the Hyde Amenmend ALREADY outlaws |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:05 AM |
#18 |
| -
You only wanted people to list the differences so you could argue them? |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:08 AM |
#24 |
| -
How bout answering the questions more than calling names, I got thick skin but I like constructive |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:10 AM |
#27 |
| -
Who did I call what name? |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:10 AM |
#28 |
| -
One last thing. If it's "redundant" and no more restricting than Hyde, |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 08:11 AM |
#53 |
| -
It is discriminatory for women to have to buy extra coverage for their healthcare. |
Lars39 |
Nov-10-09 12:16 PM |
#98 |
| -
more like you're trying to spin it as if there's no problem with it. |
LaydeeBug |
Nov-10-09 07:01 AM |
#13 |
| -
No, just tryin to get truthful, stright foward and accurate answers. Right now you cant use federal |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:08 AM |
#25 |
| -
Holy shit, really? |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:22 AM |
#42 |
| -
LInk and quote....TIA |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:23 AM |
#44 |
| -
Ya know what.... |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:24 AM |
#45 |
| -
Nikki, please don't take the request as personal I just want to read it for myself. I did not see... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:28 AM |
#47 |
| -
I said good day. |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:43 AM |
#50 |
| -
We don't need three. That's like saying, "well three fifths of a person is only two fifths off, |
LaydeeBug |
Nov-10-09 06:47 AM |
#2 |
| -
What poster #1 said, and to clarify even more |
Ineeda |
Nov-10-09 06:50 AM |
#3 |
| -
This is false, she can by the rider...like 1 said. |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 06:55 AM |
#4 |
| -
I also said it's "discriminatory and illogical". |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 06:56 AM |
#5 |
| -
No, I miss the part where federal funds can be used for abortions being made legal... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 06:58 AM |
#8 |
| -
See here: |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:06 AM |
#20 |
| -
Big deal whether it's a rider or not |
treestar |
Nov-10-09 10:50 AM |
#92 |
| -
Deliberate obtusity.... |
Ineeda |
Nov-10-09 07:05 AM |
#17 |
| -
My understanding is ALL insurance companys will HAVE to offer the rider. THey can't opt out of it |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:06 AM |
#22 |
| -
Only you are talking about a rider |
Ineeda |
Nov-10-09 07:13 AM |
#32 |
| -
I agree but it's law today and now that I know about Hyde I'll support those who want to get rid of |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:15 AM |
#34 |
| -
You obviously don't want to see, as it's been explained repeatedly. n/t |
Ineeda |
Nov-10-09 07:18 AM |
#37 |
| -
The statement about the rider is false, Stupak does NOT prevent a person paying for an abortion wit |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:20 AM |
#41 |
| -
That's not true at all |
sandnsea |
Nov-10-09 10:05 AM |
#76 |
| -
that is a bald faced lie |
dsc |
Nov-11-09 09:16 AM |
#103 |
| -
A supplemental plan is not a rider |
sandnsea |
Nov-10-09 10:04 AM |
#75 |
| -
This "rider" or "supplemental plan" |
TicketyBoo |
Nov-10-09 09:40 PM |
#100 |
| -
The major difference is that the Stupak amendment prevents you |
fasttense |
Nov-10-09 06:59 AM |
#10 |
| -
Taking the face of the bill you can buy an insurance rider for abortions can't you? |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:02 AM |
#14 |
| -
Should men be be required to buy a "rider" for constitutionally protected legal health care services |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:05 AM |
#16 |
| -
Only If I can't use federal funds or anything related to federal funds to pay for the procedure |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:07 AM |
#23 |
| -
So... what health care services for men have been excluded? |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:08 AM |
#26 |
| -
The ones that currently prevent federal funds used to pay for them? TIA |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:18 AM |
#36 |
| -
Which are....? |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:20 AM |
#40 |
| -
The ones that are currently under law. Look, I don't like the Hyde amendement either it's stupid... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:23 AM |
#43 |
| -
Right now, many insurance companies and states will pay for it |
PVnRT |
Nov-10-09 09:39 AM |
#65 |
| -
Please link and quote Stupak PREVENTING states from payin with their OWN FUNDs as they do today... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:12 AM |
#78 |
| -
Nikki, I'm intersted in constructive conversation with accurate information not name calling |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:11 AM |
#30 |
| -
Who did I call what name? |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:11 AM |
#31 |
| -
Here |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:17 AM |
#35 |
| -
Your POST is dishonest |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 07:19 AM |
#39 |
| -
Well, maybe you should have spelled it out |
TicketyBoo |
Nov-10-09 09:53 PM |
#102 |
| -
I don't know, you tell us. It's your taxes. |
lumberjack_jeff |
Nov-10-09 09:45 AM |
#69 |
| -
I think excluding care based on moral convictions is wrong. |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 10:04 AM |
#74 |
| -
Then that is the argument you should be making. |
lumberjack_jeff |
Nov-10-09 10:14 AM |
#79 |
| -
Follow along. |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 10:30 AM |
#83 |
| -
I have found one tangible non status quo difference and that is in congressional procedure to ... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:36 AM |
#84 |
| -
I have never advocated killing the bill over Stupak, but I will *NOT* defend it as "OK". |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 10:39 AM |
#85 |
| -
Agreed, Hyde is not OK either IMHO. I'm thinking one benefit from Stupak right now is it will expose |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:44 AM |
#89 |
| -
Indeed. Hyde is in and of itself a violation of Roe v Wade. |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 10:49 AM |
#91 |
| -
NO, NO, NO |
fasttense |
Nov-10-09 07:06 AM |
#21 |
| -
Link and quote the private earnings part if you don't mind, TIA. A person can CURENTLY pay for |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:26 AM |
#46 |
| -
read the amendment again. particularly parts B and C |
Aramchek |
Nov-10-09 10:40 AM |
#87 |
| -
Thank you fasttense, telling it like it is is like a tonic to these bullshitters. nt |
LaydeeBug |
Nov-10-09 07:03 AM |
#15 |
| -
Again, Stupak allows for purchase of a rider but not with federal funds how is that different from |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:18 AM |
#38 |
| -
no it doesn't. look at parts B and C of the amendment |
Aramchek |
Nov-10-09 10:39 AM |
#86 |
| -
Of course, |
TicketyBoo |
Nov-10-09 09:48 PM |
#101 |
| -
three? As if making in permanant is not enough? |
Bluenorthwest |
Nov-10-09 07:00 AM |
#11 |
| -
People can name 300, I wanted just 3 |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:06 AM |
#19 |
| -
You could not buy an abortion rider on your insurance policy unless you made more |
fasttense |
Nov-10-09 07:10 AM |
#29 |
| -
Unnn, can you link and quote that. That's not what I heard or read my understanding is you can buy |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 07:13 AM |
#33 |
| -
Unnn - you've been asked multiple times BUT WON"T ANSWER |
Ineeda |
Nov-10-09 07:41 AM |
#49 |
| -
Again, having anybody buy extra coverage for HC is stupid and that doesn't change current law. Hyde |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 08:51 AM |
#54 |
| -
You are wrong. |
fasttense |
Nov-10-09 07:55 AM |
#51 |
| -
I did NOT say the can't do it with THEIR OWN MONEY like Hyde says now. I've read that part and it... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 08:54 AM |
#55 |
| -
The very fact that women are being asked to PAY EXTRA for a rider |
joeycola |
Nov-10-09 07:30 AM |
#48 |
| -
My question is how is that different from today!?!? I agree it's stupid but it doesnt change any law |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 08:55 AM |
#56 |
| -
What? |
Bluenorthwest |
Nov-10-09 07:59 AM |
#52 |
| -
My point was anyone can come up with an infinate number of reasons good or bad I just wanted the |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 08:58 AM |
#58 |
| -
Abortion rights are fundamental rights |
IndianaGreen |
Nov-10-09 08:57 AM |
#57 |
| -
I agree, my question is how does Stupak add to any restrictions Hyde has already |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:01 AM |
#59 |
| -
Stupak prevents insurance companies from offering abortion coverage |
IndianaGreen |
Nov-10-09 09:30 AM |
#60 |
| -
Link and quote this FROM THE AMENDEMNTS not from some blog. The amendments DO NOT say this |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:36 AM |
#63 |
| -
If the insurance companies want to belong to the exchange... |
madfloridian |
Nov-10-09 11:15 AM |
#95 |
| -
Again, that's NOT what the amendement says and that's not what anyone has posted and from what |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 11:22 AM |
#96 |
| -
And you don't think requiring a special rider is discrimination? |
madfloridian |
Nov-10-09 12:05 PM |
#97 |
| -
The OP didn't say he supported the amendment. |
msallied |
Nov-10-09 12:57 PM |
#99 |
| -
Wow...the OP is bigtime deliberately obtuse. |
Zodiak |
Nov-10-09 09:33 AM |
#61 |
| -
Link and quote FROM THE AMENDMENTS then the difference between Sec 236 of Stupak |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:38 AM |
#64 |
| -
I have seen constructive answers on this thread which you ignored |
Zodiak |
Nov-10-09 09:46 AM |
#70 |
| -
ANOTHER person refuses to state the difference between the sections. Is this DU or FR?!?! |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:55 AM |
#71 |
| -
Ummm...I never said I would |
Zodiak |
Nov-10-09 10:01 AM |
#73 |
| -
I'm interested in an accurate answer from the amendments, someone did point out that Stupak doesn't |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:07 AM |
#77 |
| -
why don't you find the amendment yourself and read it? |
noiretextatique |
Nov-11-09 05:42 PM |
#106 |
| -
How is it going to be any different than things stand now? FYI, only 2% of women per year have one. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 09:36 AM |
#62 |
| -
It's not IMHO, Sec 236 of Stupak is almost word for word of Sec 507 of Hyde, some are grasping on to |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:39 AM |
#66 |
| -
You're right. But no matter, the language will be removed in conference. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 09:43 AM |
#68 |
| -
Yep, you are right, but I think a lot of people don't understand |
tonysam |
Nov-11-09 12:11 PM |
#104 |
| -
Now on the other hand it does take away the religious rights opposition to HCR. I've listened to |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:41 AM |
#67 |
| -
With the Stupak amendment, you have to buy seperate abortion insurance |
gravity |
Nov-10-09 09:59 AM |
#72 |
| -
nicely said. but some think it is OK that women have to pay extra!! |
joeycola |
Nov-10-09 10:16 AM |
#80 |
| -
My question was in regards to changes from what is done now with federal dollars. As of now... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:29 AM |
#82 |
| -
They said it also affects indirect money from the feds |
marlakay |
Nov-10-09 10:54 AM |
#93 |
| -
My issue is with the restrictions placed on insurance companies |
gravity |
Nov-10-09 11:08 AM |
#94 |
| -
they have to pay extra now as well |
Aramchek |
Nov-10-09 10:41 AM |
#88 |
| -
hx, this give me a section I have to read because what I heard on NPR yesterday was the HCI's HAVE |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:27 AM |
#81 |
| -
Watch the Degette video. It will open your eyes. |
madfloridian |
Nov-10-09 10:48 AM |
#90 |
| -
By the way, the Carly Fiorina campaign is advertising on this thread |
rockymountaindem |
Nov-11-09 12:12 PM |
#105 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread