100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: abortion funding is in healthcare bill | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I'm a pretty fast reader and given those statistics for a bill that came out just yesterday, it would take me a LOOOOOONG time to even ATTEMPT to read through it (seriously cutting into my Mingle time- LOL!) and comprehension of the legal-speak would be a whole 'nother matter! It wouldn't be happening in a day or a week or ??? I don't think anyone in America, including those who crafted this bill, will really know what is being voted on! I disagree. I think the people who crafted this bill have been planning this for a very long time and that is why they don't want to give anyone time to understand it fully before passing it. The first part of your answer here is correct, but the reason is not. Healthcare bills have been circulating and being created and tossed around since before Clinton was in office. Healthcare reform has been an issue for a while now. Noone has been able to get people to commit to it. There is no excuse for trying to cram this bill down the throats of congress in one week other than to avoid close scrutiny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a pretty fast reader and given those statistics for a bill that came out just yesterday, it would take me a LOOOOOONG time to even ATTEMPT to read through it (seriously cutting into my Mingle time- LOL!) and comprehension of the legal-speak would be a whole 'nother matter! It wouldn't be happening in a day or a week or ??? I don't think anyone in America, including those who crafted this bill, will really know what is being voted on! I disagree. I think the people who crafted this bill have been planning this for a very long time and that is why they don't want to give anyone time to understand it fully before passing it. The first part of your answer here is correct, but the reason is not. Healthcare bills have been circulating and being created and tossed around since before Clinton was in office. Healthcare reform has been an issue for a while now. Noone has been able to get people to commit to it. There is no excuse for trying to cram this bill down the throats of congress in one week other than to avoid close scrutiny. Scrutiny is available. Those congressmen have people to do these kind of things for them. Reading and making points for the congressman to address in committee and stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that "we the people" should have a chance to look at those 1990 pages! Why so many? It doesn't matter. I just think let us get a chance to look at it also. Would anyone agree with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that "we the people" should have a chance to look at those 1990 pages! Why so many? It doesn't matter. I just think let us get a chance to look at it also. Would anyone agree with this? It will take you a while to read but it is there to be read. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I understand these are a whole bunch of various bills that both parties have been working on for awhile now and have been combined into one huge book of 1990 pages. The majority of the Democrats are pleased with the revision of it, yet the Republicans backed down disagreeing with some of the terms it entails.
In the end with the Congress's majority advantage the Republicans cannot do anything about it. It looks like Senator Reid and Pelosi's only challenge is to make sure all the members of the Democratic side will vote for it. They need 218 correct? Or has it already been done? What are the chances that lobbyists have alot to do with this bill? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a pretty fast reader and given those statistics for a bill that came out just yesterday, it would take me a LOOOOOONG time to even ATTEMPT to read through it (seriously cutting into my Mingle time- LOL!) and comprehension of the legal-speak would be a whole 'nother matter! It wouldn't be happening in a day or a week or ??? I don't think anyone in America, including those who crafted this bill, will really know what is being voted on! I disagree. I think the people who crafted this bill have been planning this for a very long time and that is why they don't want to give anyone time to understand it fully before passing it. The first part of your answer here is correct, but the reason is not. Healthcare bills have been circulating and being created and tossed around since before Clinton was in office. Healthcare reform has been an issue for a while now. Noone has been able to get people to commit to it. There is no excuse for trying to cram this bill down the throats of congress in one week other than to avoid close scrutiny. I agree metalwing, I feel it is being shoved down our throats without being fully scrutinized. Apparently they think we are stupid and like them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TJN
on
Sat 10/31/09 05:11 AM
|
|
As far as I understand these are a whole bunch of various bills that both parties have been working on for awhile now and have been combined into one huge book of 1990 pages. The majority of the Democrats are pleased with the revision of it, yet the Republicans backed down disagreeing with some of the terms it entails. In the end with the Congress's majority advantage the Republicans cannot do anything about it. It looks like Senator Reid and Pelosi's only challenge is to make sure all the members of the Democratic side will vote for it. They need 218 correct? Or has it already been done? What are the chances that lobbyists have alot to do with this bill? There is one bill in the senate and one in the house. You can't say both patries have been working on them, They are strictly wrighten by democrats. The senate even locked republicans out while mergeing two bills together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not true so don't be disgusted. It just aint true. Did you not read this! Page 110 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved. http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962: That did not say it was a part of the bill to pay for abortions, you gotta do better than that. Just because the word abortion is mentioned....lol Some states pay for abortions with state funds, do you think they are mentioning it for that purpose? for which PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED Did you read the whole post? They want an ammendment to take that out of the bill. READ MY ANSWER ABOVE. This is a federal bill not a state bill. If you say it's not in it than why are you against an amendmant taking out funding of abortions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a pretty fast reader and given those statistics for a bill that came out just yesterday, it would take me a LOOOOOONG time to even ATTEMPT to read through it (seriously cutting into my Mingle time- LOL!) and comprehension of the legal-speak would be a whole 'nother matter! It wouldn't be happening in a day or a week or ??? I don't think anyone in America, including those who crafted this bill, will really know what is being voted on! I disagree. I think the people who crafted this bill have been planning this for a very long time and that is why they don't want to give anyone time to understand it fully before passing it. The first part of your answer here is correct, but the reason is not. Healthcare bills have been circulating and being created and tossed around since before Clinton was in office. Healthcare reform has been an issue for a while now. Noone has been able to get people to commit to it. There is no excuse for trying to cram this bill down the throats of congress in one week other than to avoid close scrutiny. I agree metalwing, I feel it is being shoved down our throats without being fully scrutinized. Apparently they think we are stupid and like them.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I understand these are a whole bunch of various bills that both parties have been working on for awhile now and have been combined into one huge book of 1990 pages. The majority of the Democrats are pleased with the revision of it, yet the Republicans backed down disagreeing with some of the terms it entails. In the end with the Congress's majority advantage the Republicans cannot do anything about it. It looks like Senator Reid and Pelosi's only challenge is to make sure all the members of the Democratic side will vote for it. They need 218 correct? Or has it already been done? What are the chances that lobbyists have alot to do with this bill? There is one bill in the senate and one in the house. You can't say both patries have been working on them, They are strictly wrighten by democrats. The senate even locked republicans out while mergeing two bills together. Wow amazing! This surely isn't bipartisan at all. What ashame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plastic surgery is not covered by health companies anyway. Dad's Blue Cross covers plastic surgery, but along the lines of injury and repair, not for chits and giggles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT"S NONE OF YOUR/OUR Buisness what anyony single Person does with Her/Him life. Mind your OWN people!!!! 
Your right it's not so if you want an abortion why should I have to pay for it? Why should I have to pay for a guys viagra? Ya know, if he can't get it up naturally, why should I cover his medication? Why should I have to cover a women's menopausal hormone stuff? Again, women used to go through menopause without drugs of any sort, and I personally have problems with anyone using horses (the PMU mares) to create the synthetic hormones. Why should I have to pay for anyone's pregnancy? Or their cancer treatment? Or old age? This excuse can be used for any medical issue... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT"S NONE OF YOUR/OUR Buisness what anyony single Person does with Her/Him life. Mind your OWN people!!!!
Your right it's not so if you want an abortion why should I have to pay for it? Why should I have to pay for a guys viagra? Ya know, if he can't get it up naturally, why should I cover his medication? Why should I have to cover a women's menopausal hormone stuff? Again, women used to go through menopause without drugs of any sort, and I personally have problems with anyone using horses (the PMU mares) to create the synthetic hormones. Why should I have to pay for anyone's pregnancy? Or their cancer treatment? Or old age? This excuse can be used for any medical issue... Chosing to have an abortion isn't a medical issue, it's a personal CHOICE! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paying for someone's hormone replacement, viagra, migraine meds, hip replacement goes towards improving one's quality of life. Paying for cancer treatment, control of disease goes towards life itself. Paying for an abortion is paying to take a life away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AS a pro lifer, I believe many of us(and others) make the issue too Black and white. Actually, there are times when abortion could be a personal choice BORN of a medical issue( when the mothers life would be in danger). I would prefer there be no abortions as I would that there be no killing, but I can even have empathy for those that happen to save the mother from death just as I can have empathy for someone who takes the life of a teenager who may be a threat to their life at the time. Kids are precious as is life, but there can always be extenuating circumstances for anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say, give all Liberals the option to abort their kids. For that matter, offer to neuter them all for free. Offer 'em a $250.00 stimulation to get it done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tanyaann
on
Sun 11/01/09 03:19 AM
|
|
It is my damn business thank you. If I feel like trying to fight saving these tiny babies, then so be it. You cannot tell me what to do either. What's funny is some have no qualms killing an unborn baby yet want to save the life of a cold blooded murderer. Save the babies, kill the murderers. 
110 1 (3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSUR2 ANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option 3 shall provide coverage for services described in para4 graph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed 5 as preventing the public health insurance option 6 from providing for or prohibiting coverage of serv7 ices described in paragraph (4)(A). 8 (4) ABORTION SERVICES.— 9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND10 ING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in 11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the 12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for 13 the Department of Health and Human Services 14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect 15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be16 ginning of the plan year involved. 17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND18 ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in 19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the 20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for 21 the Department of Health and Human Services 22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as 23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin24 ning of the plan year involved. http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf What this is saying is that States that already allow for abortions, can (not have to) use part of their DHHS fed funds for abortion. They are just giving the option for medical funds to be used for that. It doesn't mean that all states that allow abortion will provide funds to that (probably most will not or will with high restrictions); most will probably not do it because of high cost reasons. And before people get their panties in a bunch over politically slanted reports, please go to the source and read it for yourself! The bills themself can be complicated (I know, I am reading them all the time and this is what I will probably get into professionally) but if you take some time and re-read until you understand, you will get the general idea of what they are proposing. And yes words are selected very carefully in them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What this is saying is that States that already allow for abortions, can (not have to) use part of their DHHS fed funds for abortion. They are just giving the option for medical funds to be used for that. It doesn't mean that all states that allow abortion will provide funds to that (probably most will not or will with high restrictions); most will probably not do it because of high cost reasons.
And before people get their panties in a bunch over politically slanted reports, please go to the source and read it for yourself! The bills themself can be complicated (I know, I am reading them all the time and this is what I will probably get into professionally) but if you take some time and re-read until you understand, you will get the general idea of what they are proposing. And yes words are selected very carefully in them. That is what the post is about fed money is and will be used for abortion. So whos spreading the "misinformation"? Those saying it's not in the bill. Yes read the OP. It's a group that wants an amendment to take out fed funding for abortion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What this is saying is that States that already allow for abortions, can (not have to) use part of their DHHS fed funds for abortion. They are just giving the option for medical funds to be used for that. It doesn't mean that all states that allow abortion will provide funds to that (probably most will not or will with high restrictions); most will probably not do it because of high cost reasons.
And before people get their panties in a bunch over politically slanted reports, please go to the source and read it for yourself! The bills themself can be complicated (I know, I am reading them all the time and this is what I will probably get into professionally) but if you take some time and re-read until you understand, you will get the general idea of what they are proposing. And yes words are selected very carefully in them. That is what the post is about fed money is and will be used for abortion. So whos spreading the "misinformation"? Those saying it's not in the bill. Yes read the OP. It's a group that wants an amendment to take out fed funding for abortion. It is still just covering the way the laws are already, it is not adding anything to it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT"S NONE OF YOUR/OUR Buisness what anyony single Person does with Her/Him life. Mind your OWN people!!!!
Your right it's not so if you want an abortion why should I have to pay for it? Why should I have to pay for a guys viagra? Ya know, if he can't get it up naturally, why should I cover his medication? Why should I have to cover a women's menopausal hormone stuff? Again, women used to go through menopause without drugs of any sort, and I personally have problems with anyone using horses (the PMU mares) to create the synthetic hormones. Why should I have to pay for anyone's pregnancy? Or their cancer treatment? Or old age? This excuse can be used for any medical issue... Chosing to have an abortion isn't a medical issue, it's a personal CHOICE! As was said by someone else. It can also be a medical issue. It was for me. I had to have a doctors note to have it because both the carrying of the fetus and the terminating of it were medical problems, but the carrying would have been far more dangerous. And it would have helped to have some financial help with it, especially since I paid for insurance anyways. |
|
|
|
|
