Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So is the bill actually going to use Tax Payer money to fund abortions - I didn't know that. I thought it was about whether to include abortion in Private Health Insurance Policies offered on the exchange.
So is the bill actually going to use Tax Payer money to fund abortions - I didn't know that. I thought it was about whether to include abortion in Private Health Insurance Policies offered on the exchange.
Totally untrue... another Republican tactic to get it voted down... The Bill will NOT cover funding for abortions.
So is the bill actually going to use Tax Payer money to fund abortions - I didn't know that. I thought it was about whether to include abortion in Private Health Insurance Policies offered on the exchange.
It's right in there with the "death panel" and the "gubment takeover" provisions.
"On Saturday, Ms. Pelosi rejected a last-minute proposal that would have revised the abortion provisions after the legislation was adopted, a step typically used to make minor or technical changes with the consent of both chambers.
Instead, Democratic officials said they were pursuing the idea of promising an executive order that would prohibit the use of taxpayer money for abortions. "
Totally untrue... another Republican tactic to get it voted down... The Bill will NOT cover funding for abortions.
BTW..there is nothing in the bill preventing it..there is no wording saying abortion is not covered. That's what the promise is about..that Obama will promise to sign an Executive Order prohibiting tax dollars be used for abortions.
If I'm wrong in my reading of the bill or the article I posted..please correct me.
A lot of Americans are religious and don't want their tax money funding abortions which is against their religion.
Now there are exceptions..rape and life threat to the mother that I would pay taxes for so that people in those situations that do not have money can get what they need.
My religion is 100% against wasting young American lives to idiotic foreign wars that do nothing but stir up nests of terrorists. Where is the provision that my tax dollars do not go to the Military-Industrial death industry?
Totally untrue... another Republican tactic to get it voted down... The Bill will NOT cover funding for abortions.
It is there along with the death panels which don't scare me as much now if this passes. I may have to use them to my advantage.
The public option is in the House bill which is being reconciled and will be voted on. Abortions are covered. When this passes and people are finding out the truth Bob, will you still be here? I doubt it.
Oh bob. I love watching you walk into a train wreck
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo Always an inappropriate and/or inane response when you have no answers. That's okay. I understand that you've painted yourself into a defenseless corner and I won't continue to ask you questions that embarass you. Have a great day.
You are quite correct, I do have difficultly answering irrational rantings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Toot....toot...Get off the tracks bob! Another of my timely "irrational rants" dedicated to you florida.bob. Btw bob, I'm having some "difficultly" reading some of your posted comments.
In ObaCare, CHCs (Community Health Centers) provide for direct funding for abortions. Ya mean he lied again? Yep! The Senate bill directly appropriates$7 billion for Community Health Centers (CHCs), unconnected to any restriction on the use of these funds for abortion. The Oba-gimmick is
is based on the Hyde Amendment, which applies ONLY TO funds that flowthrough the regular annual HHS appropriations bill. This funds the CHCs and gets around that by then allowing the CHCs to create a new direct appropriation funding pipeline OUTSIDE OF the 'normal' annual appropriations process, and therefore untouched by the Hyde Amendment. One must remember that many of these political lowlifes are also lawyer lowlifes and not to be trusted at all. The National Right to Life Coalition has posted a more detailed analysis of the CHC issue here:
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html
The President's bill to amend the Senate bill leaves several abortion provisions in place.
In Section 1303 it allows tax credit subsidies for plans that include abortion and leaves the abortion surcharge in place.
In Section 1334 it maintains the proposal to create a multi-state plan that includes abortion.
In Section 10503 it would increase the Senate bill funding from $7 billion to $11 billion for CHCs without any abortion funding restrictions. If this bill becomes law, this Congress will oversee the largest ever expansion of abortion on demand at taxpayer expense.
What they're not telling you about is the Mikulski Amendment
(Section 1001, pp. 20-21), that went through by a slim one vote margin as it inserted language that CHCs would not technically 'provide abortion'. The amendment wording just hitches the abortionist's cart directly up to the customer and allows what will happen next to take place. The wording that accomplishes this infanticide sleight of hand (I'm not going too fast for you wi th this "rant" florida.bob am I? Remember I told you to read the bill.) is this> Her amendment, one part, created “American Health Benefit Gateways". How's that for a curve ball painted black and delivered at midnight on a moonless night? Gateway to where you might ask! To section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act and providers described in section 1927 (c) (1)(D)(i)(IV) of the Social Security Act of course...,as set forth by section 21 of Public Law 111-8. It's hard running down this crapola so I've got to believe that a dozen shyster lawyers sat up all night with this demonRATic hag to come up with this deal and topped it off with a round-the-room toast with Johnnie Walker Black. The net result of which is that insurance companies must cover “abortion” and that taxpayers must pay for the abortions of people making up to $88K per annum who are participating in federally subsidized insurance plans. The key here was highlighted by Orrin Hatch's questioning of the hag Mikulski about “essential community providers”. You see it that entity, the essential community providers who would make the decision on abortions. When Hatch said... “Would that include abortion providers? I mean it looks to me like you’re expanding it to where you—well, say for instance, like Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?” That was too much for Tubby Mikulski who almost wretched and became most evasive. The loophole had been uncovered and abortion on demand with federal funding was alive and well in ObaCare. You could look it up florida.bob..., I did!
As if that weren't enough bob, if you get your copy of the bill up and check it out
you may take note of this: Section 1101 on pages 45-52 you'll see 5 'very large' as we say up here in New York, $5 billion... for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program. How about that sidearm fastball for abortion, huh? And again in... Section 1322, pp. 169-180 6 likewise 'large' again BILLIONS...in, catch this bob, grants and loans for health co-ops. They come up with these dodges quicker than you could imagine.
Now another thing bob. Whenever the federal government creaes a new name for something, you can bet they're up to no good. That's these bums that you're so willing to trust you and your family's futures with. Silly boy! Another example pounds on the old cerebellum.
The federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would administer two or more national (“multi-state”) insurance plans. See Section 1334.
Even the purported requirement (pages 2087-2088) that the OPM program offer one pro-life plan is rigged to expire each year; this requirement will remain in force only if pro-life forces prevail annually in preserving pro-life language on an unrelated annual appropriations bill.
The Senate bill (Section 1303, page 2069...you with me so far bob) contains the objectionable “Nelson-Boxer language,” under which private plans that cover elective abortion would qualify for the federal subsidy, but every enrollee in such a plan would find himself/herself also subject to, you'll love this bob..., the requirement that he/she make a separate payment into a fund used exclusively for elective abortions. A friggin' abortion surcharge. Can you believe the cahones of these cretins? This requirement would apply to anyone who enrolls in a subsidized plan that covers elective abortions, which would surely include many people who would learn of the abortion surcharge only after enrolling, but who would have no choice other than
to pay the abortion surcharge or see their entire health coverage lapse. Ha! And then be penalized for not having coverage. Oh woe is we! In contrast, under the House passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a citizen who takes advantage of the new premium-subsidy program would not be required to help pay for anyone else’s abortions, which is the approach consistent with the principles that govern current federal health programs, such as Medicaid and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. Unfortuitously bob, your head nag, Dame Morose-i had declared Stupak persona non grata and is not accomodating him any more, not one single bit. The arrogance of power strikes from within.
Bob, did you know that ObaCare even screws with the American Indians.
In the Senate bill, there is a policy-neutral clause that, unlike the House bill, pushes the decision forward in time leaving it open (Section 10221, pp. 2175-2176) to interpretation.
Pro-abortion senators also blocked the inclusion of the so-called 'conscience protections' in this ObaCare H.R. 3590. The House-passed bill contained a codification of the “Hyde-Weldon” language (H.R. 3962, Section 259), which would prevent government actions from penalizing health care providers who refuse to participate in providing abortions. That restriction, not being included in the Senate 3590 version, means penalty assessments, read big $$$s, by the Oba-messiah. What a disaster.
Feel free to comment back and also include references bob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC475 Totally untrue... another Republican tactic to get it voted down... The Bill will NOT cover funding for abortions.
It is there along with
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotleyCrew
It is there along with the death panels which don't scare me as much now if this passes. I may have to use them to my advantage.
The public option is in the House bill which is being reconciled and will be voted on. Abortions are covered. When this passes and people are finding out the truth Bob, will you still be here? I doubt it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you leftie Oba-maniacs never know what you're talking about I refer you to my post comment #58 for edification.
You are quite correct, I do have difficultly answering irrational rantings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate bill (Section 1303, page 2069...you with me so far bob) contains the objectionable “Nelson-Boxer language,” under which private plans that cover elective abortion would qualify for the federal subsidy, but every enrollee in such a plan would find himself/herself also subject to, you'll love this bob..., the requirement that he/she make a separate payment into a fund used exclusively for elective abortions.
Nice puffery. I won't take the time to address all, but as to the abortion issue. The following from the bill pg 2017
1 ‘‘(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
2 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services
3 described in this clause are abortions for
4 which the expenditure of Federal funds
5 appropriated for the Department of Health
6 and Human Services is not permitted,
7 based on the law as in effect as of the date
8 that is 6 months before the beginning of the
9 plan year involved."
10 ‘‘(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
11 FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services
12 described in this clause are abortions for
13 which the expenditure of Federal funds
14 appropriated for the Department of Health
15 and Human Services is permitted, based on
16 the law as in effect as of the date that is 6
17 months before the beginning of the plan
18 year involved."
Seems to me, that the funding dependent on the law in effect. The law currently, does not allow funding for abortions. Could the law change, yes. Will it, I have no idea, neither do you. If it does, that would require a legislative action. I found nothing in the bill requiring payment to an exclusively abortion fund. I found nothing in the Reconciliation bill about this either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Death in Wars is of Real, Existing Americans
! Another of my timely "irrational rants" dedicated to you florida.bob. Btw bob, I'm having some "difficultly" reading some of your posted comments.
.
