Palin Says Pro-Life Commitment Was Tested By Family

[Straw Man]

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)?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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.   

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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...

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[Dos Equis]

What an attention whore she is, LOL!

It's the media that is still fascinated with her, following her around. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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?

[tonymctones]

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?

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Straw Man]

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?

[Straw Man]

"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?

[tonymctones]

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...