We got your Death Panel: The Democrat Party

[RobDownSouth]

I was reading somewhere the bill did not allow for abortions with public money. So which is right?

You are quite right. The current bill, with the Nelson amendment, prohibits a plan from even offering abortion services to anyone. You have to get an abortion rider (additional policy) and pay separately (about $50/month) with a separate check to get coverage.

Interesting that that is still not enough for misogynist control freaks like AJ.

 

[Wok]

You are quite right. The current bill, with the Nelson amendment, prohibits a plan from even offering abortion services to anyone. You have to get an abortion rider (additional policy) and pay separately (about $50/month) with a separate check to get coverage.

Interesting that that is still not enough for misogynist control freaks like AJ.

I will admit I did not read the bill, and since that time, amendments have been added, so who knows what kind of language has been put in there since. Do you have a link to the latest bill? I can do a search and read the shit for myself instead of relying on partisan rhetoric. The bill is partisan enough as it is.

In fact, I will just Google it myself and save the trouble for you too.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

I will admit I did not read the bill, and since that time, amendments have been added, so who knows what kind of language has been put in there since. Do you have a link to the latest bill? I can do a search and read the shit for myself instead of relying on partisan rhetoric. The bill is partisan enough as it is.

In fact, I will just Google it myself and save the trouble for you too.

It's in the Senate bill's "Nelson Amendment", if that helps.

 

[Wok]

It's in the Senate bill's "Nelson Amendment", if that helps.

Alright. And only the Nelson amendment? Hmm, maybe there is a search function for PDF files. The thing is over 2000 pages long...

Oh wait, are amendments separate from the bill or included in the bill? Oh well, I will find out.

 

[BigGator5]

You are quite right. The current bill, with the Nelson amendment, prohibits a plan from even offering abortion services to anyone. You have to get an abortion rider (additional policy) and pay separately (about $50/month) with a separate check to get coverage.

...But can still be subsidize with public funds. You left that out.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wok]

I thought the Nelson Amendment failed, was it re-introduced?

How could the Nelson amendment fail if fellow Democrats wanted the nod for cloture? That does not make sense.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

Why don't you explain your Marxist philosophical underpinnings, and why it drove you to alcoholism? You fucking nit wit.

Getting your arse kicked in Viet Nam really has left you a bitter old bigot, hasn't it?

 

[Wok]

I edited, see link.

The article was written on the 8th, and the vote was the 21st if memory serves correctly. According to the article,

Reid told reporters earlier Tuesday afternoon he would consider other language to allay Nelson's concerns. "If in fact he doesn't succeed here, we'll try something else," Reid said.

So something was changed to Nelson's liking, otherwise he would have not voted for cloture. Now I gotta read the amendment to see what is there.

 

[Wok]

OK, I just read the amendment, and it says that no federal funds can be used for it and some other supplement is used. Maybe I missed something in the legalese.

Reads it again

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Liberal guys like death panels because its a great way to avoid responsibility and to get the chance to tell a woman what to do with her body...

This made me laugh.. You're still harping on "our Sarah's" death panel meme?

Cap'n Bizarro's world, where allowing a woman the right to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy is "telling her what to do with her body", but denying her that choice is not.

Talk about cognitive dissonance..

 

[Wok]

This made me laugh.. You're still harping on "our Sarah's" death panel meme?

Cap'n Bizarro's world, where allowing a woman the right to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy is "telling her what to do with her body", but denying her that choice is not.

Talk about cognitive dissonance..

Maybe it makes no difference if public money is not allowed to be used for such a procedure anyway. From this amendment (unless there is something somewhere else), it appears it does not allow for it. What am I missing here?

 

[BigGator5]

HHS Secretary Sebelius Takes Questions from BlogHer on Health Reform

(part that goes on about abortion):

SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

BLOGHER: It’s a bit confusing, but...

SEBELIUS: Okay. It is a bit confusing, but it’s really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.

BLOGHER: Oh, that’s good, that’s good.

"It’s only confusing if you bought Ben Nelson’s dodge that Reid had changed the abortion-funding language in any significant way. If the government forces it citizens to pay into premium exchanges and then controls the distribution of that money, then it becomes a public fund in any interpretation. That’s especially true if its intent is to be a slush fund for bureaucrats to apply to whatever purpose they see fit."

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Maybe it makes no difference if public money is not allowed to be used for such a procedure anyway. From this amendment (unless there is something somewhere else), it appears it does not allow for it. What am I missing here?

As far as I know abortion coverage has been stripped away from the Senate version of the health reform bill except in the case of incest, rape, danger to the life of the mother, etc... Persons who wish to have access to coverage for elective abortion services would have to pay for them out of pocket without any government subsidies. This STILL isn't good enough or some of the "right", who would deny those services, some even in the exceptional cases above.

My comment was mostly toward the Cap'n's inane comment that allowing women access to abortion is somehow telling them what to do.. As if they were all going to be frog-marched to the abortion clinic..

 

[Wok]

"It’s only confusing if you bought Ben Nelson’s dodge that Reid had changed the abortion-funding language in any significant way. If the government forces it citizens to pay into premium exchanges and then controls the distribution of that money, then it becomes a public fund in any interpretation. That’s especially true if its intent is to be a slush fund for bureaucrats to apply to whatever purpose they see fit."

Alright, if that is how abortions will be paid, via redistribution, how come AJ's link said

[...] The Senate bill overturns this principle. It also implicitly authorizes the secretary of health and human services to require that all private health plans cover elective abortions.

So is it in the bill or not? I am trying to find the language now, but this is some confusing shit.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Powertone]

It's the quintessential AJ dodge:

Post drivel from a fringe site, then he sits back and if someone takes him to task and the heat gets too great, complain that he "never said that".

Technically true, but absolutely irrelevant.

Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

National Review a fringe site...? LOL . drivel from NR ? LOL ?
The New York Times is a fringe site , Robbie

 

[Wok]

Exactly. I'd say unless the Nelson Amendment was re-introduced, it was rejected on the 8th.

I cannot disagree with something I do not know, so you may be right. I have no fucking clue what is going on, and I am going to guess many do not either. That is some scary shit.

 

[BigGator5]

Exactly. I'd say unless the Nelson Amendment was re-introduced, it was rejected on the 8th.

I'm sorry to say this vetteman, but you either are acting like an idiot on purpose or completely ignorant as to what happen.

Yes, Nelson's Amendment was rejected. However it was reintroduce in the Manager's Amendment and passed 60-40 at 1:00 AM on 12/21/2009.

 

[Powertone]

Getting your arse kicked in Viet Nam really has left you a bitter old bigot, hasn't it?

so your parents were the ones spitting on returning vets screaming BABY KILLER I see

 

[Wok]

I'm sorry to say this vetteman, but you either are acting like an idiot on purpose or completely ignorant as to what happen.

Yes, Nelson's Amendment was rejected. However it was reintroduce in the Manager's Amendment and passed 60-40 at 1:00 AM on 12/21/2009.

OK, that is the amendment I am reading now, so it is tacked on to the bill then.

Continues to search

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The defenders of murder doth protest too loudly.

Abortion on demand will be in the final bill as will the funding for it.

No one can stop the Democrats.

All they are doing right now is a dance to cover a few seats. Ben Nelson gets to be on the record as for life, he gets his amendment, the Party gets the sixty votes and then when they only need 50 votes, Ben (and Mary and 8 others) gets to vote against the bill with the Republicans so they can't run ads against him.

Mark my words, the culture of death wants this "death panel" in the "Health Insurance" reform bill to ensure that its constituency can keep legs wide open without consequence.

A Death Panel of one...