Democrats Seem Set to Go It Alone on a Health Bill

[tricky]

Originally Posted by PETA

because 1) they're advocating protecting the life of innocent who cannot do so itself whereas an adult can and 2) they tend to prefer personal responsibility over relying on the government to take care of them

yea i know. i still chuckled

[tragicallyunhip]

Originally Posted by I AM EL-NINO

Any of it. I have yet to see anyone answer any questions at all. Anytime someone asks a question you just get a politician all defensive and calling people mobs. Down here at Sheila Jackson Lee's town hall she hardley had time to answer any questions because she was taking cell phone calls during the questions from God only knows. Never answered a single question.

Actually, I watched portions of the town hall and he actually did a damned fine job answering a lot of the questions being lobbed at him. The problem was that none of them would shut up long enough to actually listen to what he was saying. The few times he actually did get them to settle down and managed to answer their question, they ignored everything he had just said and went back to their scripted bursts of righteous indignation about whatever Beck told them to be mad about this week. When asked point blank what he had just said that they disagreed with, he was met with laughter because none of them actually had any clue what it was they were actually yelling about. He called them on that shit, too. Gonna dig up the youtube video, brb

[tragicallyunhip]

This is a lot more fair look at the way this shit was going down. Even pulled it from the FOX news before anybody starts in with the liberal media crap.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...eats_up_081809

EDIT: Looks like it's just taking you to the article. There's a video on that page that's 9:36. It's the most interesting out of all of them.

[vinnie97]

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

Exactly. Their M.O. at this point is to posture to the Right in an effort to keep them afraid and angry. It's the only way to save the Republican party. By making the Republicans feel they are on this moral crusade to save our country from becoming Nazi Germany, the people stay emotional and don't actually bother to think for themselves. They're hoping and praying to keep the anger whipped up long enough they might win back some of the seats they lost.

So, yeah. Fuck 'em.

Such partisan bullshit but I expect no less. Not everyone wants a plan that mimics Europe...and you are just as big of a sheep failing to think for yourself if you feel theirs is some kind of panacea.

Oh, and the Republicans do have a plan. Yes, it doesn't involve killing profit (someone's gotta' pay back those loans) OR demanding a costly public option but only extreme liberals would ever call such things "reform."

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...2A43414953CAAA

[vinnie97]

Originally Posted by tricky

which is why i only support progressive democrats. most of the democrats and 100% of the republicans are useless..

read that post from dailykos joel

The biggest wackos in government, why am I not surprised.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Such partisan bullshit but I expect no less. Not everyone wants a plan that mimics Europe...and you are just as big of a sheep failing to think for yourself if you feel theirs is some kind of panacea.

Oh, and the Republicans do have a plan. Yes, it doesn't involve killing profit (someone's gotta' pay back those loans) OR demanding a costly public option but only extreme liberals would ever call such things "reform."

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...2A43414953CAAA

ooooh a plan!!

condensed down to less than a page in a fucking oped?

Thursday, the Republican Study Committee has introduced legislation to positively reform our health system. The Empower Patients First Act relies on the principle that, by increasing patients’ control over their health decisions, we will make coverage more affordable, accessible and responsive, while offering more choices and the highest-quality care.
The bill seeks to achieve universal coverage by ensuring there is no financial reason to go without health insurance. By offering responsible tax incentives, patients will be empowered to purchase the care that best fits their needs.

The legislation also moves ownership of health plans from a third party to patients. When insurers are forced to be responsive to individuals, we will see the industry move to a more patient-centered model we should all seek.

Further, the bill provides for robust pooling mechanisms so patients may unite with the purchasing power of millions. This will lower costs for Americans while ensuring those with pre-existing conditions have a market in which to purchase affordable care.

As cost continues to be a sticking point in reform, the Empower Patients First Act tackles other drivers of health costs by breaking down barriers that outlaw the purchase of health care across state lines and by providing meaningful liability reform. With the creation of new health courts that take into consideration the expert opinions of medical specialty societies — those who actually know what caring for patients is like — we will see a dramatic drop in the costly practice of defensive medicine.

Finally, with federal deficits spiraling out of control, our legislation is paid for. By requiring a 1 percent annual step-down in discretionary spending, plus other efficiencies, we tell Americans that providing access to quality, affordable health care should be a priority in our budget, not just one more thing added to the deficit.

that's the plan? where's the beef? that mackey guy from whole foods had more substance. excuse me if i laugh at you on this....

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by PETA

because 1) they're advocating protecting the life of innocent who cannot do so itself whereas an adult can

Sorry to derail the thread, just had to comment on the whole Pro-Life argument. I do not believe that the abortion debate is really about the lives of fetuses. It never has been. If they really believed that fetuses are human lives, they would only be pursuing one thing: the prosecution of abortions as homicide.

The way the "pro-lifers" actually treat abortion is not as akin to murder at all. They treat it as an action undertaken by people they see as morally reprehensible for other reasons-- the promiscuous, the unwilling mothers. The fetus is not important because it is a human life; it is important because it is seen the natural consequence for promiscuity, for "sinning."

Think about the "moderates" who say that they would allow abortions in cases of rape or where the mother's life is threatened. If the fetus really were a human life, why would the circumstances of the conception (e.g. rape) have any bearing on the fetus' right to life? And why would the health of the mother, either? If the fetus is a live human being, the hippocratic oath binds doctors to keep it alive in the face of a risk to others. But what's important here is that neither the rape victim nor the possible-death-in-childbirth "deserve" the baby as a punishment. Since the rape victim did not consent, she does not deserve punishment at all. And the woman who might die in childbirth may deserve a punishment, but death is too severe.

They instead see the abortion issue as a part of a larger culture war between their way of life and the way of "sin-" homosexuality, sexual liberation, promiscuity, the circumvention of traditional roles for women, and a host of other things. The woman who gets an abortion bothers pro-lifers not so much because she's terminating a fetus, but because she shrugs off what they see as the gravity of her misbehavior by refusing to accept the "consequences."

It all has to do with people "getting what they deserve--" a baby for the promiscuous, death penalty for the murderers, and health care only for those who work for it. In this way, abortion, the death penalty, and private health care all line up perfectly from an ideological perspective. The idea is that if you're an upstanding person, you get taken care of. Otherwise, for many of these conservatives, you're a degenerate and you get what you deserve.

This viewpoint is disgusting and wrong, but when you look at it in this light it is internally consistent.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Sorry to derail the thread, just had to comment on the whole Pro-Life argument. I do not believe that the abortion debate is really about the lives of fetuses. It never has been. If they really believed that fetuses are human lives, they would only be pursuing one thing: the prosecution of abortions as homicide.

The killing of one human by another is not always murder. In fact, and as a matter of law, the killing of one human by another is murder only under a very narrow set of circumstances.

The issue is, specifically, about protecting the life of an unborn human. I'll accept that you disagree and think pro-life people are hiprocrites because they are not all uniformly in favor of trying moms and doctors for murder if they abort an unborn baby. I think that argument has little merit. More important than punishing the mom or doctor is protecting the baby. That can be done w/out the threat of a murder charge.

Originally Posted by e-brake

The way the "pro-lifers" actually treat abortion is not as akin to murder at all. They treat it as an action undertaken by people they see as morally reprehensible for other reasons-- the promiscuous, the unwilling mothers. The fetus is not important because it is a human life; it is important because it is seen the natural consequence for promiscuity, for "sinning."

I think that fundamentally misstates the basic premise upon which pro-life advocates operate. Your basic premise is inaccurate. It really is about the baby Kevin.

Originally Posted by e-brake

Think about the "moderates" who say that they would allow abortions in cases of rape or where the mother's life is threatened. If the fetus really were a human life,

Well Kevin, it is a life and it is human. If not... what is it? A dead shoe? C'mon. The proposition that the baby isn't a human life is merely an attempt to deny the reality that abortions kill unborn human babies.

Originally Posted by e-brake

why would the circumstances of the conception (e.g. rape) have any bearing on the fetus' right to life?

It doesn't so much. There are a lot of competing interests involved. We permit the killing of humans under certain circumstances. You will have to spend a life time looking for a policy choice or law that is entirely logically consistent which produces uniformly positive results.

Also, some pro-lifers would not view those circumstances as acceptable exceptions. I'd disagree with them but they exist.

Originally Posted by e-brake

And why would the health of the mother, either?

Health or life? Health is terribly ambiguous to the point of maving little meaning. However, "life of mother" is not. If faced with the choice of who dies and who lives it is reasonable morally and legally to save the mother rather than the baby. It is tragic and horrible but some times we are faced with a set of unbearable options.

Originally Posted by e-brake

If the fetus is a live human being, the hippocratic oath binds doctors to keep it alive in the face of a risk to others.

lol - sophistry Kevin. Again, if it is not alive and it is not human then what is it? Many many doctors refuse to perform abortions precisely because it would violate their hippocratic oath.

Originally Posted by e-brake

But what's important here is that neither the rape victim nor the possible-death-in-childbirth "deserve" the baby as a punishment. Since the rape victim did not consent, she does not deserve punishment at all. And the woman who might die in childbirth may deserve a punishment, but death is too severe.

Babies aren't punishment Kevin. Only Obama says shit like that.

Death in childbirth.. specious argument. At no time has it been a crime to save mom at expense of baby nor am I aware of any pro-lifers who would argue that if mom lived and baby died we should send mom and doctor to prison.

Originally Posted by e-brake

They instead see the abortion issue as a part of a larger culture war between their way of life and the way of "sin-" homosexuality, sexual liberation, promiscuity, the circumvention of traditional roles for women, and a host of other things. The woman who gets an abortion bothers pro-lifers not so much because she's terminating a fetus, but because she shrugs off what they see as the gravity of her misbehavior by refusing to accept the "consequences."

No, that's your characterization of the issue and it isn't very accurate.

Originally Posted by e-brake

It all has to do with people "getting what they deserve--" a baby for the promiscuous, death penalty for the murderers, and health care only for those who work for it. In this way, abortion, the death penalty, and private health care all line up perfectly from an ideological perspective. The idea is that if you're an upstanding person, you get taken care of. Otherwise, for many of these conservatives, you're a degenerate and you get what you deserve.

This viewpoint is disgusting and wrong, but when you look at it in this light it is internally consistent.

Well, that was about as off the mark as anything you've ever written Kevin.

[vinnie97]

Tricks: The beef went to the banks, AIG and GM. Let them keep printing! Nothing to see here! :|

So, E-Broken, I take it you promote the idea of fucking without ceasing and aborting the little fucker if the test comes up positive, thereby shunning responsibility. This is besides the point as to how it ends an unborn life but feel free to enact whatever justification you need to make the practice look anything other than morally reprehensible in this scenario (and the majority of abortion cases)...

I've never seen such a warped defense for abortion in my life. It's a classic straw man, I'll give you that.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Tricks: The beef went to the banks, AIG and GM. Let them keep printing! Nothing to see here! :|

So, E-Broken, I take it you promote the idea of fucking without ceasing and aborting the little fucker if the test comes up positive, thereby shunning responsibility. This is besides the point as to how it ends an unborn life but feel free to enact whatever justification you need to make the practice look anything other than morally reprehensible in this scenario (and the majority of abortion cases)...

I've never seen such a warped defense for abortion in my life. It's a classic straw man, I'll give you that.

Beef is also known as substance....which your post had none of.

thanks for playing

[vinnie97]

Yea, anyone can fling shit but at least I have an intact moral compass. You didn't refute jack so don't even contribute with your tepid one-liners if you're not going to try.

And the pack of lies that you're standing behind are lacking in substance, beef, validity, common sense, et al.

If the following involved Bush and company, I can hear the whiners screaming from the treetops:

Firms with Obama ties profit from health push

[tricky]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Yea, anyone can fling shit but at least I have an intact moral compass. You didn't refute jack so don't even contribute with your tepid one-liners if you're not going to try.

And the pack of lies that you're standing behind are lacking in substance, beef, validity, common sense, et al.

If the following involved Bush and company, I can hear the whiners screaming from the treetops:

Firms with Obama ties profit from health push

Are you incapable of staying on focus? I asked you to elaborate on the "plan" you posted from the Republicans. You have now shown that you are unable to provide any details nor capable of reading my text without getting your head lost in your ass too. What is this intact moral compass you speak of? Does that come from your superior conservative ideology?

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

Tricks: The beef went to the banks, AIG and GM. Let them keep printing! Nothing to see here! :|

So, E-Broken, I take it you promote the idea of fucking without ceasing and aborting the little fucker if the test comes up positive, thereby shunning responsibility. This is besides the point as to how it ends an unborn life but feel free to enact whatever justification you need to make the practice look anything other than morally reprehensible in this scenario (and the majority of abortion cases)...

I've never seen such a warped defense for abortion in my life. It's a classic straw man, I'll give you that.

Christian, I do believe that this ^^^^ post makes my point. While you may have a logical stance on the issue this is not the case for your peers. The typical conservative on the street views pregnancy as punishment for sinful behavior. Again we have a bunch of lunatic assholes attempting to legislate morality for others simply because they feel that its wrong.

Oh and Vinnie, thanks for posting so soon. I was afraid that I would be spending the afternoon doing a line by line response to peta attempting to get him to see that people like YOU really do make up the vast majority of pro-lifers. Saved me a lot of time with your high and mighty bullshit. If you really feel so strongly about the issue, put your life on hold...go adopt a special needs child that requires 24/7 care. Spend the next 40 years of your life taking care of a child with severe genetic issues. If your not willing to do that yourself, then you are in no place to expect someone else to do the same.

Contrary to popular belief the vast majority of abortions are not for contreceptive care. The largest and most prevalent form of abortion in the US is called a DNC which is the removal of a fetus that has severe genetic adnormalities, birth defects, and non viable pregnancies. (blighted ovum, eptopic etc.) Thanks to the pro-life movement most group insurance plans will not cover anything remotely related to an abortion, including DNC's leaving parents facing non viable pregnancies on their own....all because you assholes want to push you ideas of morality on others. So in short, Vinnie...Fuck you and stop putting words in my mouth.

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by tricky

ooooh a plan!!

Awesome, I hope those tax incentives covers people paying $1400+ a month bill, or at least provide a legal provision that allows them to shop around if they have a pre-existing condition. Maybe this power in numbers thing will help drive that number down... or maybe we'll just be funneling a shit load of tax money into private companies, it seems to work out great for defense contractors... why not private insurance companies?

[tricky]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Christian, I do believe that this ^^^^ post makes my point. While you may have a logical stance on the issue this is not the case for your peers. The typical conservative on the street views pregnancy as punishment for sinful behavior. Again we have a bunch of lunatic assholes attempting to legislate morality for others simply because they feel that its wrong.

Oh and Vinnie, thanks for posting so soon. I was afraid that I would be spending the afternoon doing a line by line response to peta attempting to get him to see that people like YOU really do make up the vast majority of pro-lifers. Saved me a lot of time with your high and mighty bullshit. If you really feel so strongly about the issue, put your life on hold...go adopt a special needs child that requires 24/7 care. Spend the next 40 years of your life taking care of a child with severe genetic issues. If your not willing to do that yourself, then you are in no place to expect someone else to do the same.

Contrary to popular belief the vast majority of abortions are not for contreceptive care. The largest and most prevalent form of abortion in the US is called a DNC which is the removal of a fetus that has severe genetic adnormalities, birth defects, and non viable pregnancies. (blighted ovum, eptopic etc.) Thanks to the pro-life movement most group insurance plans will not cover anything remotely related to an abortion, including DNC's leaving parents facing non viable pregnancies on their own....all because you assholes want to push you ideas of morality on others. So in short, Vinnie...Fuck you and stop putting words in my mouth.

agree

also,

Originally Posted by PETA

The killing of one human by another is not always murder. In fact, and as a matter of law, the killing of one human by another is murder only under a very narrow set of circumstances.

hence we have manslaughter....they could be tried for manslaughter. plenty of laws out there below straight up 1st degree murder....out there since if it is a life it must be some sort of killing. even if it's rape it's still a voluntary choice to kill a living person.