You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #: I do not think this is right. "same old thing" is not right but it is nothing new [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-03-10 05:58 PM
Original message
I do not think this is right. "same old thing" is not right but it is nothing new
I am not "advancing a reform that ignores it" but simply commenting the truth that not having insurance pay for abortions is nothing new.

Abortions should be covered by insurance. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -They won't even be given the option to pay for that coverage with their own money. [Citation Needed] USArmyParatrooper  Aug-03-10 05:27 PM   #0 
  - As long as the woman is well off, there is no problem whatsoever.  BrklynLiberal   Aug-03-10 05:29 PM   #1 
  - almost anyone  maryf   Aug-03-10 05:43 PM   #8 
  - Same as for women in the military, medicaid, medicare  sandnsea   Aug-03-10 05:46 PM   #11 
  - Federal funds have never paid for abortions...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 05:50 PM   #14 
     - I agree with what you write, good explanation, until the last sentence for here  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:00 PM   #31 
        - It does point to what CA is doing right...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 06:04 PM   #36 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-03-10 05:31 PM   #2 
  - self delete  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 05:37 PM   #4 
     - "As far as a rider policy"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 05:38 PM   #6 
  - A request for clarification...  Oregone   Aug-03-10 05:31 PM   #3 
  - I haven't seen any restrictions on a rider policy  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 05:41 PM   #7 
     - So you did make a mistake in your OP, correct?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 05:46 PM   #10 
        - Let's start from this point...  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 05:51 PM   #15 
           - They do restrict the right to chose, but this is not new. However, since the insurance  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 05:53 PM   #18 
           - I don't think you see what I'm getting at.  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:03 PM   #35 
              - Unless you consider financial constraints as a restriction  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:09 PM   #38 
              - Give me a scenario where a woman is more restricted with the pools then without  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:15 PM   #43 
                 - "doesn't mean it restricts them" isn't the same point as "more restricted"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:20 PM   #46 
                    - Playing symantics isn't interesting. It's old  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:29 PM   #52 
                       - If you cannot make a consise, clear, coherant argument, what do you expect anyone to do?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:33 PM   #56 
                          - So if there's an option 2...  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:41 PM   #64 
                             - I'm of the mind that its not worth discussing, as its not applicable to this scenario  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:45 PM   #69 
                                - In other words you don't have an answer  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:00 PM   #78 
                                   - Im saying this specific law creates a financially restriction, and is thereby restrictive  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:03 PM   #80 
                                      - The law that you haven't denied Obama didn't make can't possibly change  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:06 PM   #85 
                                         - "can't possibly change"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:08 PM   #88 
                                            - Amend the Constitution? Sure, that only requires a 2/3 vote. Yeah, that's feasible  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:10 PM   #91 
                                               - Its not impossible. Its been done before. But changing this law isn't possible.  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:13 PM   #96 
                                               - Do you understand the difference...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:21 PM   #107 
                                               - To quote the poster I am replying to: "can't possibly change"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:24 PM   #110 
                                               - Read again...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:29 PM   #116 
                                               - A president can't possible directly change most law. For the love of God....  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:33 PM   #119 
                                               - For the love of god... read your own posts... eom  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:34 PM   #122 
              - They do restrict women from getting abortions, same as before  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:14 PM   #41 
                 - OK, we do agree on something  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:18 PM   #45 
                    - I am working to change that and wish my congress & president had done so  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:21 PM   #48 
                    - "I'm sure the Republican's won't filibuster." Should have been obvious to you was sarcasm  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:30 PM   #53 
                       - "I'm not saying President Obama or ANY President could have changed the law"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:35 PM   #58 
                          - Such as?  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:39 PM   #61 
                             - So Obama can not contribute to an effort to change this law?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:47 PM   #72 
                                - Give me an example  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:57 PM   #75 
                                   - Could he publicly encourage lawmakers to table the bill?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:01 PM   #79 
                                      - Oh, is that all it takes?  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:09 PM   #90 
                                         - So Obama is completely impotent in the effort to change this? There is nothing he hasn't done?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:10 PM   #92 
                                            - Ever heard of The Hyde Amendment? eom  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:12 PM   #95 
                                            - Apparently, its something that can NEVER, EVER, SUPER-DUPER be changed  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:15 PM   #98 
                                            - Under this Congress? Correct  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:18 PM   #102 
                                            - So, now it can be change? Its just not politically feasible to try to stop injustice *now*?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:20 PM   #105 
                                            - Well, it won't be changed if people don't focus...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:20 PM   #104 
                                            - "Bashing someone for adhering..."  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:23 PM   #109 
                                            - So who do you think as President could get 100% of Democrats and few Republicans  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:24 PM   #111 
                                            - Obama could try his best, no doubt  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:27 PM   #114 
                                            - Hey can TRY to make pigs fly  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:31 PM   #117 
                                            - I'm not talking about "most of these sub-threads"  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:28 PM   #115 
                                            - We have no reason to believe Obama is trying to change to Hyde amendment  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:31 PM   #118 
                                            - Dude... you really need to read your own post...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:34 PM   #120 
                                            - Ok, so we can now NEVER criticize a president for inaction, because they *might* secretly be  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:35 PM   #123 
                                            - Wow...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:37 PM   #126 
                                            - Thanks for hopping to your buddy's defense  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:39 PM   #130 
                                            - Whaaaa?  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:42 PM   #133 
                                            - "the twisting in the breeze"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:43 PM   #135 
                                            - That all you got?  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 08:00 PM   #144 
                                            - I never said anything of the sort...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:40 PM   #131 
                                            - lol There is nothing "hypothetical" or "secret"  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:34 PM   #121 
                                            - Hey, I'm not the one suggesting Obama is involved in a secret effort to change this law  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:37 PM   #125 
                                            - To your questions  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:47 PM   #137 
                                            - "Because he can and does change minds and influences lawmakers"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:54 PM   #140 
                                            - That's right. He didn't try to do something impossible at the expense of something possible.  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:57 PM   #142 
                                            - You think its a trade-off (constructing a false dichotomy) but he could be working on this right now  Oregone   Aug-03-10 08:01 PM   #145 
                                            - I never said anything of the sort...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 08:14 PM   #147 
                                            - You most certainly implied it  Oregone   Aug-03-10 08:17 PM   #151 
                                            - Fertilizer  JuniperLea   Aug-04-10 10:37 AM   #156 
                                            - NO President could change the law  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:15 PM   #99 
                                               - I asked if they can contribute to an effort to change a law  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:17 PM   #101 
                                               - In the same way they can contribute to an effort to flap their wings and fly to the moon, sure  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:21 PM   #106 
                                               - And if that were the "just" action, I would clap on flapping away  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:38 PM   #128 
                                               - You want a President who "justly" flaps, I want one who gets things done  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:40 PM   #132 
                                               - If "getting things done" involves ignoring injustice, thats not my cup of tea  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:42 PM   #134 
                                               - You must have disdain for all Democratic Presidents  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:49 PM   #138 
                                               - I have criticism on most Democratic presidents' actions (and inactions)  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:53 PM   #139 
                                               - Which Obama's successes do you laud? eom  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:54 PM   #141 
                                               - College loan reform is a biggie for starters  Oregone   Aug-03-10 08:00 PM   #143 
                    - "further" is the word here. It does restrict them, you add in "further" .  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:32 PM   #54 
                       - "except for those who used to have coverage and now don't."  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:38 PM   #60 
                          - What about women who used to have coverage. Will they now continue to do so?  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:39 PM   #63 
                             - What are you referring to?  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:41 PM   #65 
                                - I got an answer  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:44 PM   #68 
           - Is your argument this: since injustice existed, continued injustice is permissible?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 05:56 PM   #25 
              - The ban on federal funds for all abortions is not Obama's doing  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:13 PM   #40 
                 - So as long as we dont attack Obama, you are happy?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:17 PM   #44 
                 - You want to change the law, I agree with you.  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:20 PM   #47 
                    - So if you don't campaign to stop an injustice, it is permissible for you not to try?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:22 PM   #49 
                       - Link me to which specific campaign promise you're ferring to  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:25 PM   #50 
                          - You are confused  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:28 PM   #51 
                             - Oh, boy. Here comes the chess analogy you love so much  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:36 PM   #59 
                                - So, to get things straight:  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:43 PM   #66 
                                   - I love the strawman  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:52 PM   #73 
                                      - Ive given you plenty of chances to refute those points in this sub-thread  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:59 PM   #77 
                                      - Essentially, you want to blame Obama for...  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:04 PM   #81 
                                         - Yes, he should shoulder responsibility for not trying to change an unjust law that already exists  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:05 PM   #84 
                                            - So there was an option 2 now there's not?  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:11 PM   #93 
                                               - Option 2 has always been a big piece of shit  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:16 PM   #100 
                                      - I do not think that word means what you think it means.  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 07:05 PM   #83 
                                         - Of course I do, and I used it in the right context.  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:22 PM   #108 
                                            - I apologize. I rec'd this and now wish to take it back because of your agenda  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 07:24 PM   #112 
                                               - Honestly I give two shits about recs  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:36 PM   #124 
                                               - I always rec threads like this  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:44 PM   #136 
                 - When he signed the bill  JonLP24   Aug-03-10 07:19 PM   #103 
                    - And the "executive order" was redundant to the wording in the bill and current law  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 07:39 PM   #129 
                       - It wasn't exactly redundant  JonLP24   Aug-03-10 08:29 PM   #152 
  - Unrec.  asdjrocky   Aug-03-10 05:38 PM   #5 
  - Very well  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 05:48 PM   #12 
     - I'd rather have a conversation with cement than try to explain somehting to someone  asdjrocky   Aug-03-10 05:51 PM   #16 
     - Ah, yes. The "you're not worth it" duck and hide  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 05:55 PM   #22 
     - So, you'd rather hurl personal insults than discuss this rationally?  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 05:55 PM   #23 
     - You need to go  femrap   Aug-03-10 05:56 PM   #24 
        - Federal funds have never paid for abortions...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 05:58 PM   #28 
        - they were before hyde.  mopinko   Aug-03-10 07:08 PM   #87 
           - Perhaps I should have said...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:11 PM   #94 
              - i'm with you. no sense adding that argument to hcr.  mopinko   Aug-04-10 12:30 PM   #160 
        - What does any of that have to do with the high risk pools?  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:01 PM   #33 
  - The rider policy is for the exchange  sandnsea   Aug-03-10 05:45 PM   #9 
  - I've never seen Federal funds pay for abortions either...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 05:52 PM   #17 
  - Nothing has changed, but I think it should. The language can be confusing.  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 05:50 PM   #13 
  - Recognizing a problem--an injustice if you will--and advancing a reform that ignores it...  Oregone   Aug-03-10 05:55 PM   #21 
     - I do not think this is right. "same old thing" is not right but it is nothing new  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 05:58 PM   # 
        - "is not right but it is nothing new"  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:07 PM   #37 
           - For those women who used to have insurance coverage, will they still?  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:33 PM   #55 
              - No idea  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:39 PM   #62 
                 - That is what I am wondering.Thanks.  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:46 PM   #71 
                    - There are quite a few problems with the exchange being too lucrative to businesses  Oregone   Aug-03-10 06:55 PM   #74 
  - I never had health insurance that covered elective abortions  WolverineDG   Aug-03-10 05:53 PM   #19 
  - Nope. Not uncommon, at all.  Luminous Animal   Aug-03-10 05:58 PM   #27 
  - I found these 3 references, interesting.  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:10 PM   #39 
  - Lies, damn lies, & statistics perhaps  WolverineDG   Aug-03-10 06:15 PM   #42 
     - I know no one who has insurance coverage for abortions. Wondering about those who do, will they lose  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 06:35 PM   #57 
     - Oh, those pesky little things called facts  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 06:45 PM   #70 
        - However, insurance companies can and do limit it by definition. "to some degree."  uppityperson   Aug-03-10 07:09 PM   #89 
        - *If* your employer purchases the rider or you purchase it yourself  WolverineDG   Aug-03-10 08:11 PM   #146 
  - Federal funds have never paid for abortions either...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 06:00 PM   #30 
  - The issue is NOT paying for an abortion out of pocket outright.  Luminous Animal   Aug-03-10 05:54 PM   #20 
  - Insurance subsidized with Federal funds  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 05:59 PM   #29 
     - Federal funds have never paid for abortions...  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 06:02 PM   #34 
     - Again and again and again. The issue is that there is absolutely no option (unlike exchanges)  Luminous Animal   Aug-03-10 08:49 PM   #153 
  - A woman learns in the 6th month of pregnancy that her fetus is severely deformed  Hello_Kitty   Aug-03-10 05:56 PM   #26 
  - Still legal for the time being...anyway.  BrklynLiberal   Aug-03-10 06:01 PM   #32 
  - Right.  Control-Z   Aug-03-10 06:44 PM   #67 
     - And thanks to all the sensible liberals here who remind us of it. eom  Hello_Kitty   Aug-03-10 07:24 PM   #113 
  - I think what people are upset about is that Obama's regs go BEYOND  bain_sidhe   Aug-03-10 06:58 PM   #76 
  - Got a link to that?  Oregone   Aug-03-10 07:04 PM   #82 
  - Ever heard of The Hyde Amendment? eom  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 07:14 PM   #97 
  - Isn't the Hyde Amendment for Fed funded programs & aren't high risk pools w/Private insurers?  OmmmSweetOmmm   Aug-03-10 08:17 PM   #150 
     - There are two issues here...  JuniperLea   Aug-04-10 10:41 AM   #157 
        - But there are some insurance companies that do pay for abortion and this law will prohibit them  OmmmSweetOmmm   Aug-04-10 11:10 AM   #159 
  - And he didn't do it in a vacuum. Insurance cos. do not want this kind of coverage in high risk pools  Hello_Kitty   Aug-03-10 08:16 PM   #148 
  - I didn't see anyone say the woman couldn't pay for an abortion out of her own funds...  laughingliberal   Aug-03-10 07:07 PM   #86 
  - Well said!  JuniperLea   Aug-03-10 08:16 PM   #149 
  - Nice attempt?  USArmyParatrooper   Aug-03-10 11:50 PM   #155 
  - I believe the key word is "coverage".  MilesColtrane   Aug-03-10 07:38 PM   #127 
  - Sincere question here.  BlueCheese   Aug-03-10 10:01 PM   #154 
  - They cannot by additional insurance to cover abortions with their own money  Tailormyst   Aug-04-10 10:47 AM   #158 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC