Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 06, 2010, 11:27:19 AM
-
Nice to see honesty from a public figure.
Palin Says Pro-Life Commitment Was Tested By Family
AP
Sarah Palin says her anti-abortion commitment was tested during her pregnancy with her youngest son, who has Down syndrome, and the unexpected pregnancy of her unmarried teenage daughter.
She told a group of about 3,000 at an Ohio Right to Life Society fundraiser in Columbus on Friday that the experiences gave her empathy for pregnant women in difficult situations.
She says her family learned after the babies were born that challenges can lead to "the greatest blessings."
The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate planned to attend a Cleveland-area fundraiser Saturday for Ohio and Cleveland Right to Life chapters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/06/palin-says-pro-life-commitment-tested-family/?test=latestnews
-
Nice to see honesty from a public figure.
Palin Says Pro-Life Commitment Was Tested By Family
AP
Sarah Palin says her anti-abortion commitment was tested during her pregnancy with her youngest son, who has Down syndrome, and the unexpected pregnancy of her unmarried teenage daughter.
She told a group of about 3,000 at an Ohio Right to Life Society fundraiser in Columbus on Friday that the experiences gave her empathy for pregnant women in difficult situations.
She says her family learned after the babies were born that challenges can lead to "the greatest blessings."
The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate planned to attend a Cleveland-area fundraiser Saturday for Ohio and Cleveland Right to Life chapters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/06/palin-says-pro-life-commitment-tested-family/?test=latestnews
she's lucky to live in a country that gives her that choice
-
she's lucky to live in a country that gives her that choice
Yeah imagine that, we have choices, but guess what, she might not have those same choices once the govt dictates everything and is forced to ration care since it will be so over budget.
-
Yeah imagine that, we have choices, but guess what, she might not have those same choices once the govt dictates everything and is forced to ration care since it will be so over budget.
actually with the current bill she might not get any choice is that wack job Stupack has his way
-
actually with the current bill she might not get any choice is that wack job Stupack has his way
Why is he a wack job? Cause he doesnt want my or you to pay for other peoples' abortions?
Personally, to me the abortion crap is nothing compared to other horrific details in MengeleCare which i have listed so many times over.
Anyone supporting this crap sandwich needs to be waterboarded about 200 times.
-
Why is he a wack job? Cause he doesnt want my or you to pay for other peoples' abortions?
Personally, to me the abortion crap is nothing compared to other horrific details in MengeleCare which i have listed so many times over.
Anyone supporting this crap sandwich needs to be waterboarded about 200 times.
he's a wackjob because abortion is a legitimate healthcare issue and it's covered by the insurance that the government provides to him and his family
-
he's a wackjob because abortion is a legitimate healthcare issue and it's covered by the insurance that the government provides to him and his family
Like I said, the abortion issue to me is nothing compared to the other issues with disaster of a bill that should be a non-starter for anyone with a clue.
-
Like I said, the abortion issue to me is nothing compared to the other issues with disaster of a bill that should be a non-starter for anyone with a clue.
I actually agree that the bill too watered down. They should put the public option back in and get rid of the state sponsored exchanges
-
I actually agree that the bill too watered down. They should put the public option back in and get rid of the state sponsored exchanges
Its a massive cluster-F#$% of a bill and have no cost controls for those of us who purchase private insurance on our own.
Straw - if my carrier now has to cover all sorts of additional things and people and mandates etc etc, what is the most likely outcome there?
-
Its a massive cluster-F#$% of a bill and have no cost controls for those of us who purchase private insurance on our own.
Straw - if my carrier now has to cover all sorts of additional things and people and mandates etc etc, what is the most likely outcome there?
the alternative is the current system where your premiums go up 20% + every year and where you're forced to take a larger and larger deductible and eventually you just decide that you can't afford the coverage any more
-
the alternative is the current system where your premiums go up 20% + every year and where you're forced to take a larger and larger deductible and eventually you just decide that you can't afford the coverage any more
And guess what? This bill does absolutely nothing to curtail costs and those 20% increases are going to be 35 - 50% when the mandates kick in and people realize the fine is cheaper to pay than a policy and they can get covered once they get sick.
Its the same as if people could get homeowners insurance once the house is already on fire. This whole mess is so poorly constructed you have no idea.
I pay $298 a month with a high deductible and $20 co-pay, which to me is completely fair. i have no gotten these increases like the media crys about, but i know for sure once MengeleCare goes throughm, I will.
What do I do then Straw? Go cry to ZERO that he promised it wouldnt happen?
-
What an attention whore she is, LOL!
-
And guess what? This bill does absolutely nothing to curtail costs and those 20% increases are going to be 35 - 50% when the mandates kick in and people realize the fine is cheaper to pay than a policy and they can get covered once they get sick.
Its the same as if people could get homeowners insurance once the house is already on fire. This whole mess is so poorly constructed you have no idea.
I pay $298 a month with a high deductible and $20 co-pay, which to me is completely fair. i have no gotten these increases like the media crys about, but i know for sure once MengeleCare goes throughm, I will.
What do I do then Straw? Go cry to ZERO that he promised it wouldnt happen?
you're right - we need to get the public option in there in order to keep costs down
-
didn't this upset some anti-abortion groups who had originally backed her?
Abortion even being an option is against the basic beliefs of some groups.
-
you're right - we need to get the public option in there in order to keep costs down
That's not being discussed or is in the Senate bill , so its no use even talking about that. I am referring to the bill as constructed presently.
-
he's a wackjob because abortion is a legitimate healthcare issue and it's covered by the insurance that the government provides to him and his family
LOL 99% of abortions are for non health related reasons...thats hardly a legitimate healtchare issue... ::)
-
That's not being discussed or is in the Senate bill , so its no use even talking about that. I am referring to the bill as constructed presently.
Any senator can add it as an ammendment during reconciliation
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/single-senator-can-secure-up-or-down-vote-public-option-expert-says/
-
LOL 99% of abortions are for non health related reasons...thats hardly a legitimate healtchare issue... ::)
and most private insurers cover it as well as the insurance for federal workers.
there is no grounds to leave it out
-
Any senator can add it as an ammendment during reconciliation
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/single-senator-can-secure-up-or-down-vote-public-option-expert-says/
That's not going to happen and even Obama said so in his speech. The public option is not going to happen because the dems are bought off by the insurance carriers they are all selling us out to. You cant blame the GOP for any of this. This is all on Obama completely.
-
and most private insurers cover it as well as the insurance for federal workers.
there is no grounds to leave it out
that doesnt make it a legitmate healthcare issue ::)
some ppl have a moral standard that tells them that abortion is wrong, why should they be forced to pay for others?
-
That's not going to happen and even Obama said so in his speech. The public option is not going to happen because the dems are bought off by the insurance carriers they are all selling us out to. You cant blame the GOP for any of this. This is all on Obama completely.
I don't disagree that many Dems are owned by the insurance companies but Repubs are just as bad if not worse and let's not forget so called Independents like Lieberman. They are all owned by insurance companies.
-
I don't disagree that many Dems are owned by the insurance companies but Repubs are just as bad if not worse and let's not forget so called Independents like Lieberman. They are all owned by insurance companies.
Sorry Straw- but I dont remember the GOP from 1994 - 2006 ever trying to force anyone ever to have to purchase health insurance from these companies under force of law and IRs penalties.
-
that doesnt make it a legitmate healthcare issue ::)
some ppl have a moral standard that tells them that abortion is wrong, why should they be forced to pay for others?
every woman has the same choice and no one is being "forced to pay" for "others" in any other way than how all insurance always works.
you pay your premiums and you make the occassional claim for service
that's how it works
-
every woman has the same choice and no one is being "forced to pay" for "others" in any other way than how all insurance always works.
you pay your premiums and you make the occassional claim for service
that's how it works
dont get me started on the whole bullshit choice inequality...
ok so why not take as we are reforming healthcare to eliminate that bs option as abortions are 99% optional?
-
every woman has the same choice and no one is being "forced to pay" for "others" in any other way than how all insurance always works.
you pay your premiums and you make the occassional claim for service
that's how it works
Not true. obamaCare gives subsidies to poor people to purchase insurance. those subsidies are funded by the taxpayer.
-
Sorry Straw- but I dont remember the GOP from 1994 - 2006 ever trying to force anyone ever to have to purchase health insurance from these companies under force of law and IRs penalties.
you don't remember how they tried to address the rising costs of healthcare and all the abusive practices and all the millions of Americans who either couldn't afford or were denied insurance (even when they were willing to pay the price)?
-
Not true. obamaCare gives subsidies to poor people to purchase insurance. those subsidies are funded by the taxpayer.
the subidies go to help pay premiums
that pool of premium $'s goes to pay for all services
that's how insurance works
-
dont get me started on the whole bullshit choice inequality...
ok so why not take as we are reforming healthcare to eliminate that bs option as abortions are 99% optional?
-
At present Federal employees have their health care paid in part or in full by the Federal Govt via taxes and that insurance covers elective abortion
If Stupak and others like him who have a problem with tax payer funds being used to pay for abortion they should start with eliminating it from their own health care coverage.
-
At present Federal employees have their health care paid in part or in full by the Federal Govt via taxes and that insurance covers elective abortion
If Stupak and others like him who have a problem with tax payer funds being used to pay for abortion they should start with eliminating it from their own health care coverage.
fair point but my point is should a procedure that is 99% of the time elective be paid for by other ppl?
why not reform the health care industry as we are trying to now to eliminate that idiocy?
-
fair point but my point is should a procedure that is 99% of the time elective be paid for by other ppl?
why not reform the health care industry as we are trying to now to eliminate that idiocy?
and my answer to your question is yes because that's how insurance works.
premiums are collected and used to pay claims
a vasectomy is usually covered by insurance and it's completely elective
why should I have to pay for some guys surgery when he can just wear a condom?
once we start down that road there is no end in sight
-
and my answer to your question is yes because that's how insurance works.
premiums are collected and used to pay claims
a vasectomy is usually covered by insurance and it's completely elective
why should I have to pay for some guys surgery when he can just wear a condom?
once we start down that road there is no end in sight
LOL simply saying bc its how insurance works isnt good enough...insurance works a certain way right now so why change if thats your line of thinking?
again fair point but there arent groups of ppl morally opposed to vasectomies like there are abortions and with legitmate reasons as well...
-
LOL simply saying bc its how insurance works isnt good enough...insurance works a certain way right now so why change if thats your line of thinking? again fair point but there arent groups of ppl morally opposed to vasectomies like there are abortions and with legitmate reasons as well...
why should an individuals moral objection be used to hijack an debate about healthcare coverage?
that's the real question
any federal sponsored health care plan should operate and provide the same coverage as private plans without any moralizing or religious bullshit
-
why should an individuals moral objection be used to hijack an debate about healthcare coverage?
that's the real question
any federal sponsored health care plan should operate and provide the same coverage as private plans without any moralizing or religious bullshit
LOL good question, but they seem to inject it into the health care debate when talking about all those poor ppl who dont have health insurance ::)
private plans dont offer universal coverage but your in favor of that...
private plans have a pre existing conditions clause but your in favor of doing away with that...
why not the ideas that Ive put forward?
-
LOL good question, but they seem to inject it into the health care debate when talking about all those poor ppl who dont have health insurance ::)
private plans dont offer universal coverage but your in favor of that...
private plans have a pre existing conditions clause but your in favor of doing away with that...
why not the ideas that Ive put forward?
I honestly have no clue what you're even talking in this post
-
I honestly have no clue what you're even talking in this post
well you said that morality shouldnt be injected into a debate over health care but it is constantly used by obama and the dems...
then you say that any federal sponsered plan should operate just as a private plan does...
well private plans have pre existing conditions clauses, but you feel that should be done away with
private plans also dont operate like universal care but youre in favor of that...
so to achieve your ideal plan changes would need to be made so why not make the changes I suggest as well?
-
What an attention whore she is, LOL!
It's the media that is still fascinated with her, following her around.
-
why should an individuals moral objection be used to hijack an debate about healthcare coverage?
that's the real question
any federal sponsored health care plan should operate and provide the same coverage as private plans without any moralizing or religious bullshit
Morality and religion are perfectly legitimate issues in public policy debates. It can form the basis for supporting or opposing legislation by members of Congress. Neither members of Congress nor voters have to check their moral and religious beliefs at the door.
-
Morality and religion are perfectly legitimate issues in public policy debates. It can form the basis for supporting or opposing legislation by members of Congress. Neither members of Congress nor voters have to check their moral and religious beliefs at the door.
do you think we as a country have a moral obligation to provide all people access to affordable health care?
-
do you think we as a country have a moral obligation to provide all people access to affordable health care?
No, but we already do.
-
No, but we already do.
so we have no moral obligation to provide access to affordable health care for living human beings but we do have a moral obligation to protect fetus?
that's why a have a hard time believing the sanctity of life argument from the right
-
so we have no moral obligation to provide access to affordable health care for living human beings but we do have a moral obligation to protect fetus?
that's why a have a hard time believing the sanctity of life argument from the right
Who said that? And what does one have to do with the other?
-
well you said that morality shouldnt be injected into a debate over health care but it is constantly used by obama and the dems...
then you say that any federal sponsered plan should operate just as a private plan does...
well private plans have pre existing conditions clauses, but you feel that should be done away with
private plans also dont operate like universal care but youre in favor of that...
so to achieve your ideal plan changes would need to be made so why not make the changes I suggest as well?
-
Who said that? And what does one have to do with the other?
I don't know what you're referring to by "that"
what are the two things you're comparing ...... what does the "one" and "the other" refer to?
-
what I said was "individuals moral objection" and I was refering specifically to Stupak.
from everything I've read Stupak objections are based on complete ignorance anyway:
http://www.examiner.com/x-24111-Liberal-Issues-Examiner~y2010m3d6-Rep-Bart-Stupak-willing-to-kill-the-living-to-save-the-unborn
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/bart-stupak-abortion-clai_n_488085.html
-
what I said was "individuals moral objection" and I was refering specifically to Stupak.
from everything I've read Stupak objections are based on complete ignorance anyway:
http://www.examiner.com/x-24111-Liberal-Issues-Examiner~y2010m3d6-Rep-Bart-Stupak-willing-to-kill-the-living-to-save-the-unborn
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/bart-stupak-abortion-clai_n_488085.html
LOL individual moral objections arent any different than moral objections...
LMFAO the very first article you posted is based on moral objections... ::) I thought you said they had not place in health care debates?
-
I don't know what you're referring to by "that"
what are the two things you're comparing ...... what does the "one" and "the other" refer to?
"That" is your statement:
so we have no moral obligation to provide access to affordable health care for living human beings but we do have a moral obligation to protect fetus?
/quote]
The "one" is the lack of a "moral obligation to provide access to affordable care" and "the other" is your comparison of "affordable healthcare" with "protect[ion] of a fetus."
One has nothing to do with the other.
-
LOL individual moral objections arent any different than moral objections...
LMFAO the very first article you posted is based on moral objections... ::) I thought you said they had not place in health care debates?
moral objections (to me) implies something that is universally agreed upon - such as child molestation is reprehensible or murder is wrong.
I have no moral objection with abortion and I would never presume to tell a woman what do to with her body. Clearly there is no consensus on that issue so it's an individual moral objection.
The first article I posted what how completely clueless Stupak seems to be about the legislation in front of him and the very process of reconciliation. Where's the moral objection? Are you talking about the title?
-
"That" is your statement:
/quote]
The "one" is the lack of a "moral obligation to provide access to affordable care" and "the other" is your comparison of "affordable healthcare" with "protect[ion] of a fetus."
One has nothing to do with the other.
ok - so you're saying you personally don't think we have a moral obligation to protect the fetus?
both are about protecting life aren't they?
-
moral objections (to me) implies something that is universally agreed upon - such as child molestation is reprehensible or murder is wrong.
I have no moral objection with abortion and I would never presume to tell a woman what do to with her body. Clearly there is no consensus on that issue so it's an individual moral objection.
The first article I posted what how completely clueless Stupak seems to be about the legislation in front of him and the very process of reconciliation. Where's the moral objection? Are you talking about the title?
LOL morals differ from individual to individual your definition or moral objections isnt right...
"It is estimated that over 45,000 people die in this country because they have no health insurance, and apparently Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is willing to sacrifice those lifes over anti-abortion wording"
by that logic I have no moral objection to torturing terrorists so since there isnt a concensus the left shouldnt be able to use their bleeding heart bs to say its wrong...again your definition of moral objection is wrong b/c morals can differ from person to person...
-
LOL morals differ from individual to individual your definition or moral objections isnt right...
"It is estimated that over 45,000 people die in this country because they have no health insurance, and apparently Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is willing to sacrifice those lifes over anti-abortion wording"
by that logic I have no moral objection to torturing terrorists so since there isnt a concensus the left shouldnt be able to use their bleeding heart bs to say its wrong...again your definition of moral objection is wrong b/c morals can differ from person to person...
As I mentioned - the point of that article was to show that Stupik objection was baseless and the title is a statement of fact and just a moral objection.
Here's the bottom line - Stupak and his family enjoy the benefit of tax payer funded healthcare and one of those benefits is the option of elective abortion. Why is his family entitled to that while the very people who pay his premium are not entitled to that benefit
-
ok - so you're saying you personally don't think we have a moral obligation to protect the fetus?
both are about protecting life aren't they?
I didn't say that. You did.
And no, the "healthcare" issue and abortion are not the same issue. Poor comparison.
-
As I mentioned - the point of that article was to show that Stupik objection was baseless and the title is a statement of fact and just a moral objection.
Here's the bottom line - Stupak and his family enjoy the benefit of tax payer funded healthcare and one of those benefits is the option of elective abortion. Why is his family entitled to that while the very people who pay his premium are not entitled to that benefit
and the basis for that article was a MORAL ONE...
I agree lets do away with all of them then...you agree to that?
you still havent answered my question...why should we inact your ideas on healtcare reform but not mine?
-
and the basis for that article was a MORAL ONE...
I agree lets do away with all of them then...you agree to that?
you still havent answered my question...why should we inact your ideas on healtcare reform but not mine?
did you even read the article or just the title?
the basis of the article was how clueless Stupak was about the language in the bill and the process of reconciliation
what are "your ideas" on healthcare reform?
-
did you even read the article or just the title?
the basis of the article was how clueless Stupak was about the language in the bill and the process of reconciliation
what are "your ideas" on healthcare reform?
I read the article I just thought it was ironic how you stated that morals shouldnt be a part of a health care debate and then you post an article in which their first comment was on morals...you also never mentioned how obama and the dems use the morality high horse to push health care and condemn reps ::)
I have many but lets focus on the one weve been talking about and doing away with abortion through insurance. You say that any federal sponsered plan should act just like private plans but you dont like private plans right now so you want change. Why not add the change I suggest as well?
-
Nice to see honesty from a public figure.
Palin Says Pro-Life Commitment Was Tested By Family
AP
Sarah Palin says her anti-abortion commitment was tested during her pregnancy with her youngest son, who has Down syndrome, and the unexpected pregnancy of her unmarried teenage daughter.
She told a group of about 3,000 at an Ohio Right to Life Society fundraiser in Columbus on Friday that the experiences gave her empathy for pregnant women in difficult situations.
She says her family learned after the babies were born that challenges can lead to "the greatest blessings."
The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate planned to attend a Cleveland-area fundraiser Saturday for Ohio and Cleveland Right to Life chapters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/06/palin-says-pro-life-commitment-tested-family/?test=latestnews
Lying POS. The trisomy 21 fetal alcohol syndrome kid is her daughters.
-
Lying POS. The trisomy 21 fetal alcohol syndrome kid is her daughters.
BAN!
-
he's a wackjob because abortion is a legitimate healthcare issue and it's covered by the insurance that the government provides to him and his family
But I personally don't want my tax dollars spent on abortion, or, for that matter, on the liver treatment for anyone who drank like a fish for years on end, or for the lung operation on anyone who smoked like a New Jersey smokestack for years on end. That's my main gripe with socialized medicine.