F107HyperSabr
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,617
- Reaction score
- 375
- Location
- Connecticut
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The only reason some people will lose coverage is because some of the companies will choose to pay the penalty rather than cover their employees. How is that Obama's fault?
There does not need to be any "provision" to restrict abortion coverage since none is afforded. You rant becomes moot.
Oh please. The bill has been passed, and the Dems are no better off for it. In fact they might even be worse off.
Do you honestly believe that Republicans in Congress personally liked the bill, and only voted against it because stopping it from passing would help them, which isn't even true?
Obviously. I mean, if the bill wasn't bad and they were trying to portray the opposing party as not being able to get anything done, then the Republicans would have had to stoop to spreading mistruths about the bill in order to sway public opinion on it. The Republicans would have had to say absurd things like it encouraged euthanasia, that it would force people to pay for other people's abortions, that tens of millions of Americans would lose their private insurance and that it would put America on a slippery slope towards Socialism. Since that clearly never happened, the Republicans were just pushing against an unpopular bill.
This version of "the bill" that was virtually the same as what the Republicans had developed in the the 1990's when they feared that the Clintonistas were going to give birth to a single payor plan. Go and look it up !!! So now they oppose what they were for brefore they opposed it.
This version of "the bill" that was virtually the same as what the Republicans had developed in the the 1990's when they feared that the Clintonistas were going to give birth to a single payor plan. Go and look it up !!! So now they oppose what they were for brefore they opposed it.
It is neither afforded nor restricted. That's the point.
Meanwhile, by statute, CHCs are required to provide all required primary health care services, defined to include health services related to . . . obstetrics or gynecology that are furnished by physicians. Federal courts long have held that when a statute requires provision of health services under such broad categories, then the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it.
Why else would Stupak and Pitts offer an amendment that provided a bill-wide blanket prohibition against federal dollars going to pay for abortion?
And if the legislation was intended to prevent such funding, then why not make it clear with one simple amendment?
Reason, the bill is intended to mix federal dollars into abortions.
And this sentiment is also vastly insulting to the American people, that it is so easy to manipulate their opinions with lies. If you believe this, then you must truly despise democracy in any form.
That's not even to mention that Republicans in Congress were in no position to have any effect on public opinion when most of the public disliked them in the first place. If you cannot accept that people came to hate the health care bill on their own accord, you can bring your hatred of democracy and the American public elsewhere.
claims of hypocrisy are not arguments.
And just who are you referring to as "the republicans" here? You're misrepresenting this as though the gop endorsed the individual mandate.
Oh, btw, those republicans who did endorse the individual mandate, they were proposing something that "virtually the same as" obamacare.
But, of course, you can present actual facts if you'd like to.
You are inventing "intentions ".
Look remember the stupidity of buffoons such as Palin who invented “death panels"?
So using your logic and Palin's illogic you must believe that there are death panels since they are neither explicitly prohibited nor established by "the bill".
And this sentiment is also vastly insulting to the American people, that it is so easy to manipulate their opinions with lies. If you believe this, then you must truly despise democracy in any form.
That's not even to mention that Republicans in Congress were in no position to have any effect on public opinion when most of the public disliked them in the first place. If you cannot accept that people came to hate the health care bill on their own accord, you can bring your hatred of democracy and the American public elsewhere.
1. "The Republicans" are not a person. Unless every single Republcan admitted their complete support of whatever proposal you are talking about, your point is moot.
2. Maybe in the time since they realized that the party of limited government is supposed to stand for, you know, limited government. Democrats seem to have a field day every time they don't, in any case.
3. They were the minority party then, thus anything they put forwards was just posturing. Posturing is one thing, actually voting on bills is another.
In the 90's or at least a good portion there of GOP had control of both houses . Remember the Gingrich contract upon America ?
The American people are idiots. By no fault of their own. It's human psychology. Anyone is susceptible to propaganda.
I don't despise democracy. I recognize what it is. Mob rule.
In the 90's or at least a good portion there of GOP had control of both houses . Remember the Gingrich contract upon America ?
You mentioned a health care bill that was crafted in the early 90s when Republicans were in the minority. The GOP control of Congress later is irrelevant to what you were talking about. If anything, the fact that a Republican Congress never pushed for the health care bill you say they supported in the early 90s just indicates that the party as a whole was never really supportive of the ideas in the current bill.
Nobody is susceptible to propaganda from people they don't trust in the first place (i.e. Congressional Republicans). Of course, your smug elitism is noted.
So would you prefer replacing democracy with dictatorship? What's the alternative?
Actually, I'm pretty happy with this thing called a Constitutional Republic. You should look it up. It's an astonishing form of government. It has checks and balances meant to protect the rights of the individual from being trampled by the tyranny of the majority. I think you might even know of a country that has one.
You owe me a new keyboard...
From the looks of it here at this board, it appears that the concepts of checks and balances and co-equal branches of government have been tossed aside in favor of a superior judicial branch that renders judgment upon executive and legislative actions. Many here seen quite comfortable with this current arrangment where we defer all judgment of constitutionality to the Courts.
What are these silly little contrivances called checks and balances you refer to?
Sincerely,
Roe
Kelo
Hamdan
But everyone is susceptible to "The most trusted News source in America." Care to guess what that might be? :mrgreen:
Hm...I wonder who that source caters to.
Actually, I'm pretty happy with this thing called a Constitutional Republic. You should look it up. It's an astonishing form of government. It has checks and balances meant to protect the rights of the individual from being trampled by the tyranny of the majority. I think you might even know of a country that has one.
Most Americans don't watch FOX, the ones who do know what they're getting, and every other media outlet leans in the opposite direction. Nice theory, doesn't fly. People form their own opinions.
Well, that was irrelevant.
Well it's only been the form of government that we have had for over two hundred years. I guess it has been a total disaster.
Wow, way to deliberately miss the point. I noted your dishonesty in the 55% thread, I am noting it here, again.
Fox News is the most watched News Network in the country. Try again kiddo.
I just find them predictable.
Way to make everything personal.
Feel free to point out how I'm being dishonest.
No, you've ably demonstrated that you're an elitist, arrogant, liberal snob who believes that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid, gullible or both.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?