View Full Version : yet another ingenious outburst by whining do-nothings
this may be even smarter than "you lie."
apparently, bart stupak is a baby killer (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/stupak-called-baby-killer-on-h.html?hpid=topnews). which is pretty funny, considering...
"Stupak is considered the leading anti-abortion Democrat and held out his support for the legislation until President Obama issued an executive order restating the ban on federal funding of abortion."
you know, if republicans quit being such a bunch of whining pussies and did something - anything - this wouldn't be so pathetic. so now we've got a bad solution to a big health care problem, and the absence of any real alternative.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 02:53pm
He did lie.
Whats your point, that Joe was spot on?
I agree with you, Mink. It's easier to stall, divert attention and then later to complain that you weren't allowed to participate in a bill rather than to cooperate with creating a bill that everyone can agree with. But ... I guess that's not what the insurance company supporters paid them to do.
Republicans: "We want a do-over!"
Where were the Republicans at the beginning of all of this? Why didn't they participate when they knew the people they represented wanted the health care system fixed?
I thought you admitted you are an indy...so.........
Where where YOU at the beginning of all of this?
Unless you think it's AOK.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 04:13pm
GRAPHIC -- Do not click this if you have trouble with the human anatomy related to abortion.
STRIKE this post. Obviously I missed the point, Stupak is swell fella who doesn't want to kill babies but voted to pay for it (with a 30% increase)
The real crime is that someone said something about it.
[/URL] (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7965/image4zl.png)[URL="http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7965/image4zl.png"]
Whats not to love?
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8121/1269201587121.jpg
uh, hey rm...I think at least that second one is against the aup
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 04:30pm
As in pr0n? Or disqualified as a legitimate scientific observation? It certainly isn't anything sexual.
kk, Ill fix it ;)
[Ed] - Better?
nakedness
Looks like an illegal late term too.
Funny. Certain people's attempt to hijack the thread away from it's original intended subject.
:lol: :lol2: :rofl: :rofl2:
:horse: on all of it :evilgrin:
I thought you admitted you are an indy...so.........
Where where YOU at the beginning of all of this?
Unless you think it's AOK.
again, just because i'm not a self-caricature does not mean i support whatever you believe to be "the other side."
i'd prefer if the gubmint merely passed a law letting insurance companies compete across state lines and offering tax incentives for companies to set up individual plans that are aggregated as quasi-group plans for cost benefits.
hey RM maybe you can post some war hero pics too cause you know folks that disagree with you are all yellow bellies as well as baby killers.
As in pr0n? Or disqualified as a legitimate scientific observation? It certainly isn't anything sexual.
kk, Ill fix it ;)
[Ed] - Better?
not really my call, but might slide
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 04:48pm
Yeah you're right, the issue is that it's rude to say mean things. Why would anyone care if the statement is true.
[x] Baby Killer
[x] You Lie
:rofl3:
as far as Stupak....
He's like many of um up there....No Spine.
RM, just because you say they're true doesn't make it so. ;) You can poke with that stick all you want to make an attempt to piss people off with the lies but it doesn't make it real. Sorry to burst your bubble. :headbng2:
:rofl3:
Actually, it is true and so.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 05:01pm
Yeah Minx I could do that couldn't I, mmmm war photos. What kind do you like?
I too like the state-line thing, shame that everything went to hell instead.
Besides Minx, if I werenot all so mucher dummer thun you, who would you whine about?
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 05:02pm
Val, please tell me you don't vote.
Yeah Minx I could do that couldn't I, mmmm war photos. What kind do you like?
I too like the state-line thing, shame that everything went to hell instead.
Besides Minx, if I werenot all so mucher dummer thun you, who would you whine about?
obama die not "lie" any more than anyone else in washington does on a regular basis, and bart stupak is AGAINST ABORTION. but, again, facts don't matter when you're bumperstickering. could you maybe try to have a rational discussion?
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7866/2cdbvvdthjpg.gif
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 05:30pm
What "facts are you talking about? EO does not trump legislation, unless we now have kings. The fact is: Bart Stupak voted for a bill that pays for abortion, how exactly is that prolife?
"die" Obama -- WTF are you babbling about? Obama lies about anything and everything.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2310/1269235425633.jpg
i'd prefer if the gubmint merely passed a law letting insurance companies compete across state lines and offering tax incentives for companies to set up individual plans that are aggregated as quasi-group plans for cost benefits.
Interesting. After the fact, you take a side.
Curious, what have YOU done, besides whining about whiners?
obama die not "lie" any more than anyone else in washington does on a regular basis
BUT MOM!!!! HE DID IT FIRST!!!!!!
Interesting. After the fact, you take a side.
Curious, what have YOU done, besides whining about whiners?
i've always had an opinion on this matter. the fact that i have not shared it here with the frequency and absurdity that others have is immaterial. i'd dig up an older post or two to show you that i've had reservations about obamacare for quite some time, but, i don't care enough about what side you think i'm on to bother.
Then why do you bother to attend?
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 09:45pm
Gonz -- The Vanguard believe the proletariat is too stupid to be told the truth, why do think they would even bother to tell the bourgeoisie?
:shrug:
oops. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-baby-killer23-2010mar23,0,7840194.story)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas said his remark, shouted during Rep. Bart Stupak's floor speech, was 'mistakenly interpreted' and referred to the White House agreement on abortion funding.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 10:47pm
Either way, the EO is worthless. Federal money will be used slice and dice unborn children like chicken strips.
For any pro-life actions Stupak has ever efforted, he will forever be known as a baby-killer hence forth.
Either way, the EO is worthless. Federal money will be used slice and dice unborn children like chicken strips.
For any pro-life actions Stupak has ever efforted, he will forever be known as a baby-killer hence forth.
oh, the drama. :sleep:
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 11:32am
OK-.
I got knocked up at the bar on NewYears and now I want you to pay for my abortion so I don't get fat.
Incest, Rape, Threat to the Health of the Mother - same reasons accepted as before. No more, no less.
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 12:13pm
Says' who?
OK-.
I got knocked up at the bar on NewYears and now I want you to pay for my abortion so I don't get fat.
what about "no federal funding for abortion" don't you understand?
oh, right, this is a soap opera about the merciless oppression of your way of life. okay, then, carry on.
Says' who?
Extreee Extreeee...Reeead aaalll about it!!!
Executive Order
- - - - - - -
ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:
Section 1. Policy.
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors-Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers-are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.
The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges.
The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.
I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.
Section 3. Community Health Center Program.
The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.
Section 4. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 12:57pm
In just a few minutes obama will sign a bill that makes abortion available with federal funding.
What do you think Stupak was objecting to before he voted for the bilk?
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 01:01pm
First off, he hasn't issued tht yet.
TWO -- EO's do not trump legislation. EO's can only control how a federal employee/agency operates. It cannot control what nonfederal hospital or doctor does.
So, no abortions in federally operated hospitals by federally employed doctors. THATS ALL the EO can cover.
The ONLY way for an EO to matter here is if ALL hospitals and ALL abortion doctors become federal assets. -- which may be next.
Either way, the EO is worthless. Federal money will be used slice and dice unborn children like chicken strips.
For any pro-life actions Stupak has ever efforted, he will forever be known as a baby-killer hence forth.
First off, he hasn't issued tht yet.
TWO -- EO's do not trump legislation. EO's can only control how a federal employee/agency operates. It cannot control what nonfederal hospital or doctor does.
So, no abortions in federally operated hospitals by federally employed doctors. THATS ALL the EO can cover.
The ONLY way for an EO to matter here is if ALL hospitals and ALL abortion doctors become federal assets. -- which may be next.
It counters what you just said...private institute or federal institute..not one federal dollar will go towards abortion unless it falls under the descriptive stated...period, polka dot. You want an abortion that falls outside those statments, pay it out of your own pocket. Freedom, sunshine.
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 01:13pm
An EO cannot have any say in a private institution. It is private contract subsidized by the feds.
Good luck with what you're thinking.
ResearchMonkey
3/23/10, 01:20pm
Here Bish, political cover. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKEHvj2e04E)
If the government ignores the rule of law
then doesn’t that mean I can ignore the rule of law too?
ResearchMonkey
3/24/10, 12:46am
....something like that.
Guttmacher Institute Memo on Insurance Coverage of Abortion
July 22, 2009
(This memo was updated on September 18, 2009)
Notwithstanding a widespread misinformation campaign, none of the health care reform proposals pending in Congress would mandate abortion coverage. Rather, they would maintain the legal status quo—under which insurance companies decide whether abortion will be covered in the plans they offer. This raises the question of how extensively abortion is currently covered.
Two major studies have been conducted on this issue
The best available evidence from two studies—conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)—suggests that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion.
The Guttmacher Institute’s federally supported study, assessing levels of insurance coverage for a wide range of reproductive health services, found that 87% of typical employer-based insurance policies in 2002 covered medically necessary or appropriate abortions; the data can be found in Table 1 here.
Importantly, the 87% of plans that covered abortions did not include plans that offered abortion coverage only in very limited circumstances (such as rape and incest, or to protect the woman’s life). Only a very small number of respondents offered such limited coverage, and they were not included in the study’s findings.
The study queried all large insurers (with at least 100,000 enrollees) and a random, nationally representative sample of small insurers.
The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 46% of covered workers had coverage for abortion. The data were released as part of its 2003 Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey.
Differences between the Guttmacher and KFF studies
The Guttmacher study queried the medical directors of insurance companies and asked them about the typical insurance policy they wrote for employers.
KFF queried employers’ human resources staff and asked about their firm’s coverage.
Both studies probably have shortcomings
Guttmacher’s study asked about “typical plans” and might not account for the fact that some employers may purchase atypical plans, such as plans with high deductibles that would not cover a range of services, including abortion.
The KFF study surveyed human resources staff, who might not know this level of detail about their coverage, and, in fact, it received a disproportionately high level of “don’t knows” (26%) in response to this specific question.
Bottom line
The actual answer is probably somewhere in between, meaning that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion.
Abortions paid for with private insurance
A 2003 Guttmacher Institute study found that 13% of all abortions in 2001 were directly billed by abortion providers to private insurance companies (see Table 3 on page 20 here). Some antiabortion activists have misused this statistic to claim that insurance coverage of abortion is not widespread. However, direct billing does not equate to either extent of coverage or even use of coverage.
Our finding included all women who obtained abortions in 2001, including the numerous women on Medicaid or those who were uninsured. If one looked only at privately insured women—the group relevant to the question at hand—the number would (by definition) be substantially higher than 13%.
The 13% does not include women who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves, rather than having their provider bill the insurer directly—a common occurrence because many abortion providers are not a part of private insurance networks.
Some of the women whom our study identified as paying out of pocket likely had insurance coverage for abortion care, but may not have known they had it or chose not to use it for reasons of confidentiality. Given the stigma that still surrounds abortion, these women might not have wanted their insurer or employer, or the primary policyholder (like a spouse or parent), to learn that they had obtained an abortion. Looks like you had best look at current health insurance policies and what they're doing before slamming the new healthcare bill. The bill maintains status quo re: abortion based on state laws. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html
Val, please tell me you don't vote.
I vote. I vote in every election: local, state, federal. My voice is heard.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.