Breaking: Nelson on board sells out; gives Dems 60th vote on healthcare

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for breaking.jpgUPDATE, 2p: National Right to Life has issued a statement on the Nelson "compromise." Excerpt:

NRLC... strongly opposes the abortion language contained in the "manager's amendment" filed today.... Reid intends to press for Senate approval of the language during the days immediately ahead, without allowing an opportunity for any revisions to be considered.

The manager's amendment is light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was approved by the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194. The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems....

UPDATE, 1:25p: A Dem Republican senator has accused Nelson of holding preborn babies hostage (before sentencing them to public funded death) to get to get perks for NE, according to The Hill, which also notes Nelson's "compromise" has not received the blessing of the USCCB...

That language has not won backing of the Catholic bishops, though, unlike the Stupak amendment in the House. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) noted that Nelson stood by himself Saturday morning to announce the agreement.

"He couldn't find one group to stand by him and validate what he was saying," Graham said.

Sen. Richard Burr (DR-NC) took umbrage with Nelson, implying that he used his anti-abortion stance to help negotiate a better deal for the state of NE. The manager's amendment released by Reid on Saturday has NE receiving extra Medicaid funds. In an earlier press conference, the Senate leader called it a "minor point" in winning Nelson's vote.

UPDATE, 1:20p: Per Kathryn Lopez, Sen. Coburn has thoroughly blasted the Nelson abortion "compromise" in a press conference:

"As somebody that's delivered thousands of babies and that has a personal interest in the pro-life issue, the claim that this is a pro-life rider in this bill is absolutely fictitious." The Nelson negotiations "threw unborn babies under the bus."

"Federal funds around the country -- even with the opt out -- will be used to fund abortions."

"This is far worse than the Casey proposal, it's far worse than the Capps proposal, and it will in fact eliminate, through the courts, the Hyde Amendment."

"If Barbara Boxer is okay with this language, nobody in the right-to-life community is going to be okay with it."

[HT: moderator Carder]

UPDATE, 12:20p: Even the Daily Kos is calling Ben Nelson a sell out. That's bad.

UPDATE 11:10a: Here's the CBO score, just released.

UPDATE, 11:05a: Here's the bribe Nelson took.

UPDATE, 11:03a: The Senate will vote to end debate on the Reid's manager's amendment around 1a Monday morning. CALL your senators. Talking point:

You oppose the so-called abortion compromise in the manager's amendment of the healthcare bill, because it subsidizes insurance plans that cover abortion, which is contrary to longstanding federal law.

Go to the National Health Care Task Force website to easily send emails to targeted Democrat senators.

UPDATE, 10:51a: A House source has emailed details on Reid's manager's amendment, as it relates to abortion:

The Manager's Amendment does NOT contain language similar to the Stupak amendment approved by the House. Instead the section on abortion (starting on page 38) adds a provision allowing states to opt out of providing abortion coverage through the exchange and adds further layers of accounting requirements.

The result remains the same, contrary to longstanding policy, the federal government will subsidize private health insurance plans that cover abortion, and Americans will facilitate abortion by making it more easily available. The result will be more lives lost to abortion and more wounded mothers.

The Manager's Amendment also strikes the public option and replaces it with a program similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program run by the Office of Personnel Management. However, unlike the FEHBP, the Director of OPM will contract with health insurance companies to provide insurance that includes abortion....

No word yet from National Right to Life, the USCCB, Planned Parenthood, or NARAL on their take, but here's more decipherization, from Talking Points Memo:

Unlike the so-called Stupak language in the House, Nelson's abortion language would not forbid people who receive subsidy assistance from the federal government from buying insurance policies that cover abortion. However, according to Nelson, the money that pays for each such policy will have to be separated into two pools--one that pays for the abortion coverage, and one for all other services.

UPDATE, 9:46a: Here is PoliticsDaily.com's take on what got Nelson on board re: abortion, which is merely a different scheme to include public funded abortion in healthcare...

Nelson said Saturday that his concerns about abortion funding have been satisfied. "I have strongly held views and have fought hard to prevent federal funding for abortions," he said. "I believe we have accomplished that goal." In the managers' amendment, states will be permitted to opt-out of providing abortion coverage on their own state-based health exchanges. An accounting mechanism was also added to segregate federal funds for subsidizing health insurance from private funds for abortion coverage.

The senator warned that his ultimate vote on the bill will not assured until he sees the results of the House-Senate conference committee, where the chambers will combine the two competing versions of the bill. "If there are material changes in that conference report, I reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote," he said. "I will vote against it if that is the case."

Note: "Opt-out," not "opt-in," meaning guaranteed uphill fights in 50 states to stop public funded abortion in healthcare. "[S]egregate federal funds" - same ole, same ole.

UPDATE, 9:30a: From Harry Reid, on Twitter (with a link to the WashPo article I posted below)...

harry reid, ben nelson, healthcare, abortion.png

[HT: Matt Lewis]

UPDATE, 9:23a: Tweet from Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com: "@Jill Stanek It's a complete cave on abortion. It's essentially the same language as it was a few weeks ago."

09:15a: It remains to be seen whether Nelson did a Benedict Arnold on public funded abortion in the healthcare bill. No word yet on what Reid's manager's amendment says about that. It is of note, however, that Nelson, like Landrieu, was bought off. From the Washington Post, within the hour:

Sen. Ben Nelson (NE), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

"We're there," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), as he headed into a special meeting to announce the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with Nelson on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. But Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

Asked if he was prepared to support the bill, Nelson said, "Yeah."

With Nelson seemingly on board, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled the final version of a sweeping overhaul of the nation's health insurance system that would expand coverage to an additional 31 million Americans, coming closer to attaining the Democrats' longsought goal of universal medical coverage....

[HT: reader Maria]


Comments:

Nelson had to keep up his sincere-appearing facade to get as much mileage as possible from his switch.

Posted by: hippie at December 19, 2009 9:23 AM


Folks,

You're actually surprised??

A simple fact of life. A Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat.

These people will jump off a cliff for the Party and their leader. Many of them, including Nelson, are literally committing political suicide for both.

Posted by: Mary at December 19, 2009 9:37 AM


FU Nelson. The blood of the 30% more children who will be killed because of federal funding for abortion is on your hands.

Posted by: Oliver at December 19, 2009 9:48 AM


Oops, that was me at 9:48.

Posted by: Lauren at December 19, 2009 9:53 AM


Congratulations, Benedict Nelson!

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 9:59 AM



Whatever happened to the notion that the people's representatives are well...the people's representatives?

Have you looked at the polls where healthcare reform is concerned. Check out RealClearPolitics.com.

We are governed by bribes, threats, political arm-twisting, and party loyalties.
We have a media that is nothing more than a presidential lapdog.

We are sounding and looking more and more like a tyranny every day.

The real irony is the American people have brought this on themselves. Too many of our citizens let themselves be taken in with charm, great speechmaking and political buzzwords.

Posted by: Mary at December 19, 2009 10:02 AM


From Dan Perrin, who is much more eloquent than yours truly:

"The world will understand America has changed. Our country is now run by elites who are printing money, debasing our currency to throw at massive new spending and deficit creating programs — and actually believe they are both moral and politically smart. Just 19% of the public believes this plan will not increase the deficit."

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 10:07 AM


Hi Carder,

Long ago the Soviet Union vowed they would bring us down without firing a shot.

It looks like that prophecy came true.

Posted by: Mary at December 19, 2009 10:19 AM


His name is Benedict Arnold Nelson. He will be FIRED by Nebraskans. Pro Life Nebraskans who fell for his "I'm pro life" nonsense SHOULD be outraged.

I never trusted him. And I didn't reelect him last time, I voted for the OTHER GUY!


He said his vote could NOT be bought.

You know what will happen......this "compromise" was put in for him, but before it combines with the house, it will be REMOVED. They did it to bring him in. It won't be there in the FINAL bill.


Goodbye Ben, in the words of Donald Trump: YOU ARE FIRED!!!!!!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 19, 2009 10:19 AM


Why is anyone shocked? HE IS NOT PRO-LIFE. He is just less pro-abortion than most other Democrats. Most Republicans and virtually all Democrats reject the right to life of the unborn. They simply disagree about which babies it should be legal to kill.

No support of personhood = not pro-life. If it's not a person, what is it?

What is it, Nelson? What is it, Stupak? We need to stop looking to pro-aborts to lead the way in the battle against abortion.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at December 19, 2009 10:21 AM


Hi LizFromNebraska,

Didn't I say from day one that the Stupak Amendment was a ploy to get this bill to the Senate? While PL people celebrated this "victory" a huge Trojan Horse stood in our midst.

Now Nelson has gone from hold-out to sell-out.

History repeats itself. The Trojan Horse ploy works yet again.


Posted by: Mary at December 19, 2009 10:27 AM


Ben Nelson -> Judas.

Sold his soul for a bag of silver.

Posted by: Jasper at December 19, 2009 10:39 AM


Actually, Jasper, worse.

He sold it for paper money. And thanks to all this spending and more to come, the paper will be utterly worthless.

So maybe we can say he sold himself for tree pulp.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 10:45 AM


Not many in politics have true integrity and are willing to stand or fall on principles of right and wrong. We had hope that Senator Nelson was one of the few. He is not. Did he pretend to be on the fence so that he could get more money for his state? Maybe. Does he know that the language is not true to the Hyde Amendment. That is all but certain. What is certain is that he did not have the strength to stand or he never ultimately intended to stand. He is not a true leader. It's woefully unfortunate. But, remember to turn your eyes toward heaven, toward our ultimate Hope. Ask Him to continue to work in our nation. He is at work. He will continue to help us, if we continue to beseech Him.

Posted by: Valerie at December 19, 2009 10:47 AM


While I'm beseeching Him, I'm grabbing the tar and feathers.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 11:00 AM


Couldn't abortion coverage in the bill actually improve the odds that it fails in the end? A good thing, IMHO.

Posted by: Janet at December 19, 2009 11:31 AM


Oh come on, can't you at least be glad for all the millions of people who will finally have access to basic health care? Or how about all the women who won't have to wait any longer to have babies?

Posted by: reality at December 19, 2009 11:37 AM


Pssssssss.

Little secret folks.

For years, private insurance has been tax exempt, thus, subsidized by the US government. Most plans, including the one the GOP offered employees, cover abortion. Even plans that don't are with companies that have plans that do cover abortion - for instance, the company focus on the family uses for healthcare.

So, at this point in life, the only real plans that haven't covered abortion are government plans like TriCare and Medicare.

Passing this coverage will most likely decrease abortion rates, as now, many women face the choice of living an uninsured life with a child - and the money factor is too great. Yes, pass health care reform if you want to start making a difference on abortion rates.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 11:43 AM


Hey, Ex-GOP voter, apparantly you missed the memo. Planned Parenthood claims that government funding for abortion will increase abortion rates by 30%.

Posted by: Lauren at December 19, 2009 11:45 AM


Yes - missed it - source please?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 11:48 AM


Lauren - still waiting for a source - been trying to find it myself. Did find an interesting study though while looking - it's from the Catholics in Alliance for the common good. I'm not Catholic (Ev - Christian), but it's a good read - Joseph Wright is the author, November 2008 if you want to find it. Says that abortion rates of women in poverty is much higher than women out of poverty. - in fact, " a two standard deviation increase in economic assistance to low income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate in the 1990s. Across the entire United States, this translates into roughly 200,000 fewer abortions."

Would be nice to lesson the cost of health care on folks to help people in regards to this economic and moral decision.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 12:01 PM


So are we all OK with CBO scoring that says Medicare physician payments will be cut by 21%?

We can add gazillions of people on the dole, but if we have a physician shortage, which this bill will more than likely propel, then we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Pick a number. Hurry up and wait.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 12:05 PM


From his eminence, Senator Coburn:

“As somebody that’s delivered thousands of babies and that has a personal interest in the pro-life issue, the claim that this is a pro-life rider in this bill is absolutely fictitious.” The Nelson negotiations “threw unborn babies under the bus.”

“Federal funds around the country — even with the opt out — will be used to fund abortions.”

“This is far worse than the Casey proposal, it’s far worse than the Capps proposal, and it will in fact eliminate, through the courts, the Hyde Amendment.”

“If Barbara Boxer is okay with this language, nobody in the right-to-life community is going to be okay with it

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 12:09 PM


Ex-gop...

Here you go. "The Guttmacher Institute has found that 20-35% of Medicaid-eligible women who would choose abortion carry their pregnancies to term when public funds are not available.13"

Guttmacher=Planned Parenthood, in case you don't know. It's their research arm.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/2/gr030208.html

Posted by: Lauren at December 19, 2009 12:13 PM


Carder - the only CBO number I can find of the 21% is from a scoring on March 27th of this last year...

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, without legislative action, physician payment rates under Medicare will be reduced by
about 21 percent in January 2010 and by about 6 percent annually for at least several years thereafter. By 2014, the cumulative reduction in the rates will be about 40 percent.

Is that what you are referring to?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 12:15 PM


Lauren - with all due respect, that paper is from 9 years ago, and you misquoted it (unless my "find" feature isn't working - the number 35 does not come up in the paper).

The number needs to be further multiplied out - it isn't saying that 20% more - it was saying of eligible folks, 20% of them would have had an abortion.

Yes - that's an unacceptable number - but that's an entirely different thing, and wasn't looking at this reform language, which doesn't cover abortions in standard Medicare.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 12:23 PM


This is from today's CBO. Basically, it's numbers are based on the assumption that nothing legislatively will change. Sorry that it's a long passage.

"These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades. However, the legislation would maintain and put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. Under current law and under the proposal, payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years. At the same time, the legislation includes a number of provisions that would constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare services. In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers would be held below the rate of inflation. The projected longer-term savings for the legislation also assume that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is fairly effective in reducing costs beyond the reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the legislation."

So, if I'm interpreting it correctly, there's alot of variables in play. Given the government's track record of overspending (see social security, medicare,medicaid, stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc.), my confidence is not where it should be.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 12:36 PM


Carder - you are correct - but the three biggest words in that blurb are "under current law". Essentially, if nothing gets passed at all, and there's no changes to Medicare laws that were passed over the last few years there would be the reductions that the CBO cited.

I recently saw Tommy Thompson speak of reform - and he convinced me it is needed. He said 80% of things everyone agrees on and is needed - it's the 20% that is holding everything up. I hope they can level out the 20% and get this passed. I'll send you my premium increases through the recent years if you want to see the effect on the income on a middle class family!

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 12:44 PM


No need to send it. I'm paying, too, and yes, they have gone up.

Just don't ask me to finance Nebraska's exemption or pay for New York's abortions. Or Louisiana's Purchase. Or make me or my kids buy insurance in the face of fines or jail time.

Just don't.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 12:51 PM


This bill funds abortion, it imposes financial burdens on states already struggling with Medicaid payments, it will increase premiums, increase taxes, and increase our national debt. Together with the $1.1 trillion spending bill passed a few days ago, the Democrats have passed $2 trillion in brand new spending in the last few weeks of the year.

If that equals the 20% of disagreement, I shudder to think of the 80% we do agree on.

Not to mention that the majority Americans have been against this legislation for months.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 1:12 PM


This is fun.

“Safe, Legal, and Rare” just became “Safe, Legal, and Subsidized.”

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 1:16 PM


A dark day for the soul of America. And a legacy of innocent blood will be shed upon Ben Nelson and his offspring.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 1:19 PM


Jill, I have to correct you on something, Senator Richard Burr is not a Democrat, he's a Republican.

Posted by: Morgan at December 19, 2009 1:38 PM


Well done Nelson. Now go home and meditate on the Nativity and Herod's slaughter of the innocents. That was government funded too. And for all the Democrat Party's talk of being there for minorities, especially Native Americans, what a beautiful Christmas present you gave to those who dwell in poverty and despair on reservations: Federal funding to slaughter their future. http://lifenews.com/nat5795.html

Well done sir. It was for this that you so valiantly held out?

Standing on PRINCIPLE, means no compromise.

COMPROMISE means selling out the principle through pragmatic consideration and establishing a precedent. That precedent will be seized upon in future legislative sessions to expand the federal funding of abortion.

Merry Christmas Senator Nelson. May it be one of your last in office, and may you live a VERY long life to see and marinate in the awful evil you have visited on us this day, after which, may God grant you a merciful judgment.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 19, 2009 1:43 PM


Oh my, Gerard.

Tell me you emailed that to the good senator.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 1:46 PM


Looks like the babes at NOW aren't sold.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73083-national-organization-for-women-opposes-senate-health-bill

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 1:56 PM


To make any argument that making something legal or "free" results in its decrease its absurd.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 19, 2009 1:59 PM


On judgement day, people like Nelson who claim to be pro-life and turn away at times like this deserve to be judged more harshly then even Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 2:01 PM


Carder - you speak as if they don't pass reform, everything will be rosy. Look at GM vs Toyota and the massive whole US companies are in because of the health care costs here. And you talk of struggling Medicare costs, as if not passing the reform will mean they'll get better. You talk of the national debt as if health care spending will get better if reform isn't passed. Reread the same CBO you quoted earlier - it talks of a decrease of national debt.

This isn't a Democrat issue or a Republican issue. The issue is that we spend more than any other country in the world, and it's hurting both American companies and American families. Reform is needed - big time.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 2:11 PM


x-gop,
This "reform" bill is a PIG. If it is good then why do they have to incarcerate people who don't want it?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 2:14 PM


Truthseeker - I would encourage you to cancel your healthcare coverage now (assuming you have standard health care insurance coverage). I would call your friends and ask them to do the same. Your coverage specifically, or other plans the same coverage company offers, almost without a doubt has abortion coverage in it. Even the plan for the GOP, up until a month or so ago, had abortion coverage in it - and other plans by the same provider has abortion coverage.

What you are railing against has been going on for decades - most insurance plans, which are not taxed and thus subsidized by the government, fund abortion. Plain and simple. Kill reform, and guess what - your dollars are STILL going towards funding that has gone on for years.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 2:15 PM


truthseeker - sorry, had posted before seeing your latest post.

The individual mandate was driven mostly by the insurance companies, but has pretty broad support. Romney supported that aspect of the MA plan as a necessity. There is a hardship clause in it though - and there's no incarceration - it's a fine (for those who don't meet the hardship clause).

Essentially, have you ever been hit by an uninsured driver? Right now, a large component of health care costs come from uninsured people waiting until they are really sick, and then going in to emergency rooms. Who pays for that? Yes, of course, you and me. By requiring people to have insurance, the long term goal is the change the game and get more people to get preventative care so you and I don't pay for their emergency care.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 2:20 PM


x-gop,
i also get tax exempt status to put money into my flexible health savings account, but it is MY money that goes in there and not the governments. Last time I balanced my checkbook the government was NOT going to sending my orthodonist any payments or putting money into my flex account. Do you really not see the difference? AND ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE!!!

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 2:25 PM


Let's make a distinction here, Ex.

I am FOR reform. I agree that things need to change, absolutely. I have said as much many times on this blog.

I OPPOSE the current reform bill for the reasons I have already stated PLUS the fact that a government-centered healthcare system is very, very problematic. There's decades of entitlement program evidence to back me up.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 2:30 PM


truthseeker -

Yes, your money, untaxed, thus government assistance. I don't know enough about HSA's to know the coverage company and what not - but if there's an insurance company that oversees it all (or negotiates rates of services), and you are receiving tax break assistance - unless that insurance company has no plans that offer abortion, then you are indirectly paying for abortion coverage now.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/taxpayers-already-subsidize-abortion-coverage-maybe-even-yours

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 2:32 PM


x-gop said,
"and there's no incarceration - it's a fine"

x-gop,
1) are you looking for honest debate? You are either misinformed or your intent is to be less than truthful. read the bill and tell me what is the prescribed penalty for those not paying the fines....what is it?
To be fair, this thing is being rammed down peoples throats without debate so maybe you actually did not have a chance to see that incarceration is the penalty for not paying the fines.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 2:33 PM


Carder - thanks for the clarification.

I would offer one thought - right now, the biggest consumer of healthcare in America is the government. Tricare, Medicare, state programs, and you and I funding hospital shortfalls. Government centered healthcare is largely here, though without cost control efforts.

The bills advancing are certainly not perfect. If we don't do anything though, then we just wait another decade for reform when Medicare is bankrupt. My fear though, and the fear I've heard from others, is that if we don't get healthcare under control in general (the costs) - it is dooming American companies globally.

I see it as a huge Christian issue as well (not sure if you're Christian or not, or if that matters to you) - but I think people dying from lack of adaquate medical coverage is unacceptable.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 2:36 PM


which is it ex-gop....lies or just misinformed?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 2:37 PM


ex-gop...shouldn't we take the time to make sure the world's prescription access is not funded on the backs of the American people? Why pass the bill that insists onthe statusq uo and flatout refused to "reform" one of the most glaringly unjust costs to our healt care. STOP this pig.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 2:45 PM


I'm glad you brought up Mass.

If you want to see how this nation could end up, and if we're so concerned about controlling costs, we should not be singing the praises of Massachusetts.

Cato did a study a few months back, and the results yielded some interesting results:

"Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.

Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.

Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.

A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician."

And it's not just Massachusetts.

Maine has its own version, Dirigo Choice. It was so "successful" that even Senator Snowe didn't want to see a repeat of it in the current legislation.

Right now American companies are already being doomed by the trillions of dollars of spending this administration has wrought upon us. Obama already cried wolf about how the sky is falling if we don't do such-and-such how many times the past eleven months.

Add a few more trillion to the pot, Ex, and we'll all be poor together. And thanks to Nelson, we get to shoulder Nebraska's share of the load.


So this thought of how the government is the biggest consumer of healthcare simply proves my point.

Posted by: carder at December 19, 2009 3:00 PM


truthseeker -

First of all, I think I've really been nothing but courtesy during this discussion. Plain and simple, the opinion of either you or me is not going to make reform pass, or hold it up. I will continue to speak kindly - but accusing me of lying - I think that's uncalled for.

There's multiple bills - a senate and a house. My understanding is the senate bill just calls for a fine - the house bill is both. In both, I believe it is 300 or 400% above the poverty level for the hardship clause - so if somebody does not adhere, it is not because of a lack of funds.

Secondly - in your list post, are you talking about immigration reform and possible inclusion into the reform bill?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 3:01 PM


Carder -

Here's an interesting read if you want to read more on the MA bill. http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/back-massachusetts-answer-kos

One key difference - hugely key, is that the MA bill only sought to expand coverage. It was NOT a bill that focused, or even touched on cost containment.

In regards to the "sky is falling comment" - Tommy Thompson, who worked under Bush - essentially convinced me of the argument. If you look at the healthcare costs, per vehicle of GM and Ford vs Toyota, you'll see where it is hurting us.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 3:04 PM


ex GOP,
Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ, or any other Christian, would want government funding of abortion? Cause if you are, then you blaspheme the holy name of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, like all babes, was conceived (given life) by the Holy Spirit. And regardless of what any other person may say, to kill such life is contrary to the gospel and teaching of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 3:15 PM


ex-gop,
i did not call you a liar. I stated the possibility that you were just misinformed. You now are saying "My understanding is the senate bill just calls for a fine - the house bill is both."

From where did you get this understanding? Have you seen a copy of the Senate bill?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 3:20 PM


Secondly - in your list post, are you talking about immigration reform and possible inclusion into the reform bill?
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 1 PM

ex-gop,
I never mentioned immigration. i said that pharmaceutical companies are subsidizing cheap prescription drug access for the rest of the world on the backs of the American citizens. Why pass the bill that insists on the status quo and flatout refused to "reform" one of the most expensive and glaringly unjust costs to our health care? This "reform" is not much more than a pork package government funded stimulus bailout of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. And the Democrats will answer for it in November of 2010 if it passes.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 3:36 PM


truthseeker

You asked if I were a liar or just misinformed. Next time you get in an argument or discussion with a loved one, throw that line out and then ask them if they felt they were being called a liar. Gloss it over if you'd like, but that is what you did. In regards to the mandate and the senate, I have not read the whole bill - just read summaries.

In regards to the comments on Jesus. I think Jesus would be against abortion in general - I don't think he'd give a rats behind who paid for it. I don't think he'd say "oh, it's okay now, it was stripped out of the bill". To say that Jesus would be against this bill, but for the system in general (abortion, health care) - that's not an either/or proposition. What I do think is clear is that there are many reasons that people have abortions, and one of the major ones is socioeconomic status. If we help the lower class and reduce the amount of times a person feels that abortion is the right choice, then we are better off.

Again though, killing this bill doesn't change the fact that right now, most insurance plans have abortion coverage, and most insurance companies have plans that include abortion coverage. It is the largest tax break in the country - health care. So RIGHT NOW, and for many of the past years, the government and their taxpayers have funded abortion.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 3:37 PM


Sorry truth - when you mentioned funding the rest of the world, I thought you were talking illegal immigration. My bad.

I agree with you - it's a major, major criticism and question people should have asked on Bush's medicare prescription drug plan. I think it should get dealt with.

You are right about 2010, but if it doesn't pass, the Dems are even in more trouble. But really, when was the last time a party made huge gains and then built on them? You knew the shift would happen - it always does.

I also agree with you that the private interests did water down the bill to much and made it, to a degree, an insurance company bail out. I do think though that in the future, we will have greater public options, which is the best way to deal with that. We'll see - hopefully they'll get through step one (well, hopefully, in my opinion!).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 3:42 PM


ex gop,
You say Jesus wouldn't "give a about who pays for an abortion. I say that any legislation that lends support to the killing of babies would certainly grieve the Holy Spirit and draw condemnation from Jesus Christ. Who is right? To find the truth we should look at the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus said it would be better that you had a millstone tied around your neck and be cast to the bottom of the sea then to hurt one of his little ones. That means he would rather you tied a millstone around your neck and threw yourself into the sea then to hurt one of his children.

We are in agreement about this, "If we help the lower class and reduce the amount of times a person feels that abortion is the right choice, then we are better off." IMO you are not helping a person and actually you are hurting them and encouraging a person to commit abortion by offering to pay for the suction.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 4:02 PM


Well, I actually said "behind", but that's okay.

I agree with the scripture, but I don't fully agree with your logic. It isn't an either/or proposition. Not passing reform doesn't mean that there's no money going from the government towards abortion - that has been going on for a long time. In fact, wouldn't you think then that based on your logic, the thing you would massively support would be a public plan that didn't contribute to abortions? In that case, more people would shift to a public plan and leave private plans, which cover abortion.

Too bad Christian organizations didn't think of that one!

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 4:10 PM


ex-gop
I disagree about the dems being in more trouble if it doesn't pass. If this pig passes it will not only swing the pendulum greater in 2010, but they will be held accountable for leaving a legacy of fiscal irresponsibility and government confrontation and intrusion into the personal lives and health decisions of US citizens for generations to come.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 4:11 PM


2010 will play out how it does - but fiscally, in regards to the national debt, the cbo says this will decrease the debt. Overall though, I agree - Bush and the GOP got booted, in part, because of the debt increase, and I think the Dems will face the wrath as well. I think both parties have done a lot of spending that was necessary (wars, stimulus bills) - but thankfully, the debt is becoming a bigger public issue, so hopefully something will finally get done about it (social security reform, health care reform, and tax increases are coming!).

I'm going Christmas shopping soon - but will check back later or tomorrow. Let me end with this.

I believe Jesus is in control of things, and the world isn't going to end either way (passage or non-passage). I do believe that health care reform is needed, and while both bills are far from perfect, non-action is the worst scenario. What I fear is that the debate has become about "winning" and "losing" - not about doing what is best for the country - and I mean that on both sides. The attitude and demeanor of both the country and those who represent us is appalling. I think ALL the politicians have forgotten who they work for.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 4:20 PM


ex-gop,
if you truly believe the above scripture then you may want to pay heed to this one also; before you inadvertently lead our nation into destruction:

"Rejoice over her, heaven, you holy ones, apostles, and prophets. For God has judged your case against her." A mighty angel picked up a stone like a huge millstone and threw it into the sea and said: "With such force will Babylon the great city be thrown down, and will never be found again. No melodies of harpists and musicians, flutists and trumpeters, will ever be heard in you again. No craftsmen in any trade will ever be found in you again. No sound of the millstone will ever be heard in you again. No light from a lamp will ever be seen in you again. No voices of bride and groom will ever be heard in you again. Because your merchants were the great ones of the world, all nations were led astray by your magic potion. In her was found the blood of prophets and holy ones and all who have been slain on the earth."
Revelation 18:20-24

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 4:20 PM


Truthseeker - luckily, I don't think debating you will do much to inadvertently lead our nation into destruction - but God bless and have a great night!

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 4:23 PM


This wrath will also include judgement for exporting death not only in wars, but also in the spreading of the killing of innocents thorugh exportation of our abortion police...eg the Mexico City Policy. Will your hands be clean when the wrath comes?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 4:27 PM


And right now you are supporting a bill that you admit not even knowing if it includes goverment incarcerating citizens who fail to purchase a health care plan... slow down...take a deep breath...we have time to read it before we support it right? Anything else would be irresponsible and "ignorant".

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 4:30 PM


Truth Seeker, we may not agree on every detail about everything, but I am with you in this debate.

Posted by: Raymond V Banner at December 19, 2009 4:45 PM


Ex-GOP, I got the number from the NARAL site that quoted the study. I linked to the study itself because I like to use source data. Here's the naral site making the claim. Now, it's possible that the NARAL site misquoted the study, I wouldn't put that past them.

Posted by: Lauren at December 19, 2009 6:11 PM


Sorry, here's the link for the NARAL site...
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

Posted by: Lauren at December 19, 2009 6:17 PM


Again though, killing this bill doesn't change the fact that right now, most insurance plans have abortion coverage, and most insurance companies have plans that include abortion coverage. It is the largest tax break in the country - health care. So RIGHT NOW, and for many of the past years, the government and their taxpayers have funded abortion.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 3:37 PM
*******

ex-gop,
Stop and honestly think about this and I am sure you will understand their is a difference between government letting somebody keep their own money to spend how they want (tax breaks); and government taking somebody's money and giving to others to spend. ie giving Planned Parenthod a tax break for their "services" is not the same as funding the building of abortuaries.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 6:23 PM


or to clarify:
government giving Planned Parenthod a tax break for their "services" is not the same as giving Planned Parenthood MY tax dollars to fundg the building of abortuaries.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 6:36 PM


Truthseeker - luckily, I don't think debating you will do much to inadvertently lead our nation into destruction - but God bless and have a great night!
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 4:23 PM
****

no, debate should actually help our nation, but your words and discussions with others, if misleading or full of misinformation, can lead people astray and a consequence could be a vote that could lead our nation into destruction. ie Senator Ben Nelson's vote for this bill or your vote for for a Democratic Senator.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 6:43 PM


Raymond,
Thank you for the kind words and Merry Christmas.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 7:04 PM


And the "dead"line just happens to be Christmas Eve. What a slap in God's face - the whole creepy bunch of legislators here are diabolically motivated whether they recognize it or not.

Posted by: observer at December 19, 2009 8:58 PM


What about Stupak and the 10 dems in the house that got betrayed...can they do anything to slow this train down?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 10:15 PM


truthseeker

Thanks for the debate today - hope you have a great Christmas.

I don't think this vote is going to be what pushes us over the edge in the destruction of our country from the hand of God. Again, we've been funding abortion for years - and in general, abortion rates have been coming down. I think what will get us faster is greed if you ask me - but that's a different debate for a different day.

Happy though that it looks like the senate will have something done shortly. Read a good article tonight about how the Republicans really helped it become as left of a bill as it is - in the early days, the Democrats worked hard for a compromise bill - Snowe was the main one working with the Dems. Once it was clear the Dems would be going alone, then the bill became farther left. The GOP's insistence on making this about Obama is going to end up making it more dramatic than it would have been in the first place. Just an opinion out there, but it makes sense (I can send the article if you'd like).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 10:19 PM


Stupak didn't get betrayed - it's a separate governing body.

I'm sure in the combining of the two bills, abortion language will be carefully worded. You should probably be praying for a strong public option though without abortion coverage - that's the best case scenario for decreasing government money towards abortion. I think the GOP has completely lost their seat at the table at this point, so the only power left is the blue-dog Democrats - but they'll carry the line when needed at this point (imo).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 10:22 PM


ex-gop,
In what ways did you see the bill get farther left as it went along?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 11:09 PM


truth -

Let me let somebody smarter than me answer that question:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/the-republican-health-care-blunder

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 11:12 PM


ex-gop,
that article fails to note the fact that the Democratic leadership is the one who would not allow Republican participation in any debate or in this process at all. In fact, well over 90% of the Democrats were not allowed debate in the process. The second ranking member of the Senate Dick Durbin said himself last week he had not even seen the Harry Reid bill so he did not know what was in it. No Republicans voted for it cause the whole process was a sham and the Democrats willl pay for their abuse of the peoples congress. One of Obama's big campaign lies was that he would run a transparent government and this whole process was nothing less a Democratic leadership sham orchestrated almost completely in the dark. You even said yourself that you don't even know if incarceration is a part of the Senate mandate, but you won't even call themn out on the complete lack of transparency or debate. That is all part of their plan to rush it through; so people don;t have a chance to even offer amendments to make it better. Like I said in my previous post to you..... right now you are supporting a bill that you admit not even knowing if it includes goverment incarcerating citizens who fail to purchase a health care plan... slow down...take a deep breath...we have time to read it before we support it right? Anything else would be irresponsible and "ignorant".

Posted by: truthseeker at December 19, 2009 11:26 PM


Ahem, x-gop'er. They caused the bill to go "further left"?

Have you heard about Howard Dean and the unions and MoveOn and Keith O. dissing the bill because it is not enough to the left? No, if anything it has moved AWAY from the fringe left to just plain "the left".

You should know this is a Dem bill all along--they have the votes, pure and simple. Yes, of course they would like to advance the bill under the pretense it is a bi-partisan work, so as to soften the blow back. But a rather strange thing has happened: the Repubs seem to be united, with even Snowe and Collins staying on board. Which leads to the observation that an alignment of the stars and planets, such as we have not seen in a long while, has just taken place.

C'mon back x-er. Things are really starting to take shape for a hugh resurgence. 2010 will be a watershed year for the Repubs. Of course, the party is not perfect, as no party ever has been nor ever will be.

The only real alternative to the GOP is more of crazy Nancy and harried Reid. These two have done more than anyone to bring the Repubs back together--thank you--and lets not forget Obama's contribution to this as well.

Posted by: Jerry at December 19, 2009 11:41 PM


Jerry/truth -

I'm going to hit both at once if you don't mind.

I didn't write the article - it's a view that maybe will take off, and maybe won't. It's the position of somebody who follows it all closer than I do - that's all I'm saying.

These bills have not been rushed - it certainly isn't the Patriot Act - the debate has been going on since, what, mid-summer? The GOP was part of the process for a while, but in my opinion (and others), they never participated in good faith, drew away from the process, and I'm glad they were then left out of the process. Part of me wishes the Dems had let them go through with a filibuster to get a solid 24 hours of video of rich folks reading the phone book to kill insurance reform for average Americans.

Anyways - I will admit that I don't know everything about the bill, which is why I read a ton of columns and commentary on it (which led me to this site as well). Unfortunately, what I've found is that the right has embraced fear tactics instead of reasonable debate on what's best for the country (for example, Sarah Palin and her death panel), and the right made it more about beating Obama. Yes, I think the Dems also made it about getting something through, anything through - but again, I can't blame them much when GOP members fight for amendments to get in the bill, and then don't support it anyways.

2010 will be a GOP pickup year. It would have been anyways. No party is going to advance and pick up more seats than 59. I agree with Nelson's quote yesterday though - this legislation will be on par with social security as one of the more defining pieces of legislation in history. I'd rather be a part of passing that and get voted out, then go status quo (or be part of the party of "no"), and keep my job.

Thanks - heading to church after one more post - have a great day.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 8:25 AM


Iif people weren't pissed at the power-drunk Dems before, they likely are now...

These tools like Nelson will soon regret the day they did this for Obama, he'll pull all them right-over the abyss with him... and the coming GOP majority will just rescind it anyway-

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

Posted by: Reaganite Republican at December 20, 2009 10:11 AM


Iif people weren't pissed at the power-drunk Dems before, they likely are now...

These tools like Nelson will soon regret the day they did this for Obama, he'll pull all them right-over the abyss with him... and the coming GOP majority will just rescind it anyway-

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

Posted by: Reaganite Republican at December 20, 2009 10:11 AM


Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 19, 2009 2:15 PM


Where are you getting that MOST insurance plans cover abortion? My husband is a union teacher, arguably one of the most liberal groups on the planet, and our insurance does NOT cover abortion except the standard life of the mother, and explicitly states that "mental health" is not considered a "life" reason.

Maybe that is just our particular school district, but even when I was working and covered by my own insurance there was no abortion coverage. In both cases the insurance company was BCBS IL PPO.

BCBS may in fact provide abortion coverage as an option, but - unlike any government plan - the company is able to pick and choose which coverage they want to pay for. Maybe this is what you are referring to but you are passing it off like every company in America covers abortion.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2009 10:16 AM


Ex-Gop voter,

You overlook a very important factor. The American people freaking don't want this bill!!!
You can read the polls as well as I can, go to realclearpolitics.com and check it out yourself.

In a representative republic the senators and congresspeople are supposed to represent their constituents, not kiss the backside of Obama.
Mary Landrieu is openly bribed. If this isn't giving the American people the finger what is? This is strictly about Obama's glory and if Democrats dive off the cliff to hand it to him, so be it. You think Nancy Pelosi cares if these bluedogs get canned once they have served her? She considers them a pain in the fanny and is happy to send them packing. Personally I can't understand their stupidity and political death wish.

Maybe they're hoping that granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens will provide them with the Democrat votes needed to keep them in office, which by the way is the next item on Obama's agenda. Small wonder he's in such a hurry to ram health care down our throats. The clock is ticking...

Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2009 1:28 PM


ex-gop,
Not just you, last weeke even Dick Durbin, who is the #2 ranking Democrat in the Senate said he still hadn't seen this pig of a bill. And you blame the Repulicans for not debating a bill that has not even been presented to them....the dinsidious denial of responsibility runs so deep in the libeal mind. You could just as easily start blaming Bush for the your health reform debacle, it makes as much sense.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 1:40 PM


ex gop,

Your name is very telling of your pre-disposition. I noticed yesterday at 3:43 p.m, you just couldn't help yourself, and you tried to blame Bush for part of your health care debcale ... lol you said

"I agree with you - it's a major, major criticism and question people should have asked on Bush's medicare prescription drug plan. I think it should get dealt with."

When it was Obama himself who broke his campaign promises and pulled the amendment to fix prescription drug care costs (a pharmacetical industry pay-off) But byour response it to blame Bush... lol You and the Obama administration are EITHER flat out liars or you are able to put yourselves in an almost trance like state of denial. It seems you are inacapable of taking resonsibility for anything. Like Obama's answer to the question of when human life begins. A very simple question and a very obvious scientific answer that Obama fumbled and rambled about his inability, from a scientific or moral perspective, to state an answer with any sopecifiicity...blah blah blah... I am waiting for you (and Obama) to flat out start blaming Bush for the health reform debacle, it makes as much sense as blaming the Republican party.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 2:05 PM


Let's start your therapy now ex-gop... Your prescription is to take a deep breath and repeat after me. Obama and his party are responsible for the health care reform debacle. Obama and his party are responsible for the health care reform debacle. Obama and his party are responsible for the health care reform debacle. Say this once every four to six hours as needed for denial relief. You don't have to worry about overdosing, you can say it more often if you feel like a lack of responsibility for your actions is coming on.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 2:12 PM


The only possible saving force in the Democratic party would be if Stupak and the blue-dogs are able to hold true to their word and either stop this pig in reconcilliation.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 2:16 PM


or get their abortion oversight language added to the bill

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 2:20 PM


Kristen - there's no definitive stat that exists (that I know of) - the lowest % I can find is 46% of plans cover abortion - highest is 90. Most say 60%-70% do.

Mary - the recent Gallup poll has it deadlocked (48-46, which is within the margin). Other polls have shown some of the folks against the bill are that way because it isn't strong enough (not a strong enough public option). Furthermore, if polls showed Americans were against the Iraq war - does that mean we should automatically pull out?

truth - I don't even understand your last posting. Let me just say I voted for Bush first time around. Even voted Norm Coleman just a year ago. I didn't leave the GOP - they left me. One - they talk the talk about fiscal policy but they don't walk the walk. Secondly, I felt that they were pimping the Christian vote. I got tired of feeling like I was being used. I don't understand most of the rest of your post, but I'd say that in general, I think it's wrong to try to generalize too much about a person based on their screen name and a handful of posts.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 2:22 PM


truth - I don't see what sort of debacle you are talking about - they are on the verge of doing something politicians have tried to do since Truman.

Let me throw out just a few general things:

- I was at a company for ten years. Our "pool" of employees was so bad that my families cost would have been higher than our house payment. We got private insurance through BCBS. Over five years our premiums went up almost 50%, and we changed our deductible from $500 to $3000.

- I have friends right now who have no insurance for their family of five after he just got laid off

- I have another friend who's in a dead end job and wants to leave, but she gets insurance through their, and because of a disease her husband has, can't leave because the pre-existing condition wouldn't be covered.

- There's multiple benefits in this area over the coming weeks for families struggling with health care bills because of major medical issues. They should not be having to raise money - they should be working on healing bodies and healing families.

I can't wait until they get the bill through. No, it is not perfect, but it will be a major step towards improving access and decreasing costs

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 2:29 PM


Ex-Gop,

Gallup is the only one and even that is a statistical dead heat. Again check realclearpolitics.com for polls on the people who are AGAINST/OPPOSE the bill. Right now the average of all the polls is 13.7 AGAINST/OPPOSE.

So do you agree that a bill should be shoved down the throats of the American people if they don't want it?? What's the rush anyway? The bill wouldn't kick in for another few years.

Oh yes, that "amnesty" issue.

Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2009 2:31 PM


ex-GOP says "One - they talk the talk about fiscal policy but they don't walk the walk. Secondly, I felt that they were pimping the Christian vote. I got tired of feeling like I was being used. "

So you went to a party that doesn't even pretend to show fiscal restraint and openly supports every immoral act under the sun?

I don't understand that logic.

Posted by: Lauren at December 20, 2009 2:38 PM


Mary - you have to look at the actual polls though. The first NBC poll is rated 47 against to 32 (I guess 21% of people live under a rock!). But in the poll, they ask if reform in the shape of insurance exchanges (one aspect), and 58% support that to just 32%.

I think the rush is what we've seen what GM vs Toyota if you ask me. Plus, how long do they have to take on this? We launched into a major war and passed the Patriot Act in less time.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 2:41 PM


Ex-Gop 2:29PM

Much of what you describe could be remedied by cross state insurance company competition. We could have these companies competing for our business, much like the car insurance companies do.
When you have monopolies in states, you run the show. When you have to compete you have to keep prices reasonable and quality high.

I also think low income or unemployed people should be able to buy into medicaid if possible, pay on a sliding scale.
If not, it should remain at no cost.
Has your unemployed friend checked into medicaid?

Ex-Gop, you are looking for some panacea in this bill. I can promise you that all you will get will be more bureacracy, inefficiency, and out of control expense that will make the insurance companies look like pushovers.

Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2009 2:41 PM


Lauren - look at national debt levels over the last 25 years, and tell me which President was the best in regards to national debt, and which party he was from.

When it comes to morality, the GOP talks big about abortion and does nothing about it. Their other main morality platform concerns limiting rights to homosexuals. I embrace more of a Donald Miller, Boyd, Sojourners society type of view - more on poverty, social justice, etc... There's a lot of Christian democrats out there these days - look at the last election.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 2:45 PM


Ex-Gop, 2:41PM

That's the point I'm making. Of course people want insurance change, me very much included.
That's a far cry from wanting the gov't to take over our health care!

I also have an issue with the "people's representatives" who kiss Obama's backside instead of answering to the people and openly selling their votes.

Live with it Ex-Gop, the American people don't want this bill.

Oh yes we rushed the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Do you think rushing health care is a good idea based on this history?

Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2009 2:48 PM


Mary - friend was recently laid off - so hoping to have a new job shortly. My brother went through the same thing though, and it's scary, having insurance linked so heavily with employment. The US is unique in that.

I agree with you though on insurance exchange. I think the situation of health care is crucial enough that we need to try a lot of things and get costs down. Imagine if health care costs could be decreased a few percent in this country, how much of a difference that would make for the middle class. Companies and people are struggling.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 2:48 PM


Mary - the bills as they exist now are a far cry from a government takeover. Private insurance will still cover the majority of Americans. Also - if government insurance is so bad, maybe we should end TriCare and make military families go on their own? You get my point - the government insurance that exists does pretty well.

The polls are all over the place on the subject. I've seen mostly split numbers.

I don't think this bill has been rushed. It's been in the works since, what, summer? Plus, reform has been debated since Truman - I think that's enough time!

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 2:52 PM


Ex-GOP, look at the national debt again. Which party doubled it in a day? That would be the democrats. Yes, the republicans showed poor fiscal constraint, that doesn't mean we should double down and start literally burning money.

The only reason there was a balanced buget under Clinton was because of the Republican congress. Left to his own devices, Clinton was on the same spending road as any other liberal. He was forced to the center after the mid term elections.

The republicans have done a lot to reduce abortion, not enough, but certainly more than the liberals whose primary goal is to push FOCA and make abortion free for all.

I personally couldn't care less about gay marriage from a political stand point, but you can not pretend that the dems have had any sort of biblical standing on that matter.

As for "social justice" it's a bunch of bull. There is nothing Christian about socialism. Charity? Actually, that's debatable, but giving through Tithes. Yes. Having the government steal other peoples money to "redistribute"? Nope. Can't find that anywhere in the bible.

Posted by: Lauren at December 20, 2009 2:53 PM


Ex-Gop,

I certainly wish your friend the best in his job search. However, if necessary, medicaid is something he could look into. Yes indeed, dependency on employment for insurance can be very scary. Again insurance reform, competition and free markets, not government takeover.

Well, I'm glad we finally agree!

I would love to see health insurance companies battle like Geico and Allstate do! An example of cross state free market forces and competition.

Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2009 2:56 PM


Ex-GOP Says "You get my point - the government insurance that exists does pretty well."

Are you kidding me!? Guess who has the highest rate of denied claims? Medicare.

Have you ever tried to be seen as a medicaid or medicare patient? Expect to wait for months and find a subpar doctor. Need to change your address? Forget it, it will take 6 months and you can't be seen until some low level beurocrat gets to it.

As for our military care, it's shameful. Between my husband and me, 3 of our grandfathers have either died or almost died due to malpractice in a VA hospital. I have never heard a elderly vet say a good word about the care received.

Our Indian health care is beyond horrific. No doctors, no equitment, no medicine. Your care would likely be better in a third world country than on an Indian reservation.

The one thing that all government health care has is common is that it is terrible.

This bill does nothing to address the real issues with health insurance or make it more affordable. It just forces more people into a more corrupt system. It places government agents between doctors and patients and sets up "advisory boards" akin to NICE that dictate who gets what treatment.

Not to mention the fact that it funds illegal aliens and abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at December 20, 2009 2:58 PM


Ex-Gop 2:52PM

Don't be bamboozled EG. Obama dreams of a single payer gov't system and that is his ultimate goal. He has said so. You start out gradually for your goal, you don't charge like a lion.
Why do you think there are cries for a gov't option? The bill can be changed and modified.

I understand Canada went down this same road, only a gov't option if needed. Maybe that's why the Canadian gov't now contracts with American hospitals, including some in my hometown, to provide services to their citizens they cannot.

Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2009 3:02 PM


Lauren,

Did Jesus ever demand the Roman government distribute welfare payments or free health care?
Did he ever argue it was the gov't's responsibility to provide for citizens?
Did he encourage people to depend on gov't?

Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2009 3:08 PM


Lauren - info on satisfaction of plans - look who's number one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS211409+16-Jan-2009+BW20090116

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 3:50 PM


Sure, it's great until Walter Reed can't properly diagnosis a kidney infection and you die.

Posted by: Lauren at December 20, 2009 4:03 PM


Just citing the facts ma'am.

Maybe the right-wingers ought to go after Medicare and Tricare next - heck, a guy's already argued that men shouldn't have to pay for pregnant women. I think it's a great trend to continue!

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 4:05 PM


ex-gop said,
You didn't respond to all my references to the Obama parties lies and broken campaign promises cause it would mean stepping outside of your world of fantasy and denial. It didn't take long away from the GOP for you to pick up this liberal blgging tactic. But so be it. Lets move on to your last post.

- "I have friends right now who have no insurance for their family of five after he just got laid off"
ex-gop,
since they just got laid off, they are probably scraping for money to live on. Under the new health "reform" plan they would likely be forced to take some of their food money or rent and give it to the government mandated insurance plan. Even if the goverment subsidised part of the cost it could still lead to fines and prison for many who would choose to pay their rent instead. A lot of people like you would be visiting friends and family in prison instead of blogging. And it is you and the rest of the Democratic party who will be held accountable when it happens.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 4:12 PM


correction:
ex-gop
You didn't respond to all my references to the Obama parties lies and broken campaign promises cause it would mean stepping outside of your world of fantasy and denial. It didn't take long away from the GOP for you to pick up this liberal blgging tactic. But so be it. Lets move on to your last post.

ex-gop said
- "I have friends right now who have no insurance for their family of five after he just got laid off"
ex-gop,
since they just got laid off, they are probably scraping for money to live on. Under the new health "reform" plan they would likely be forced to take some of their food money or rent and give it to the government mandated insurance plan. Even if the goverment subsidised part of the cost it could still lead to fines and prison for many who would choose to pay their rent instead. A lot of people like you would be visiting friends and family in prison instead of blogging. And it is you and the rest of the Democratic party who will be held accountable when it happens.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 4:14 PM


Fix Medicare and Tricare? Definitely. Both offer substandard care.

Posted by: Lauren at December 20, 2009 4:16 PM


ex-gop,
Before you dance around another issue, let me ask you a straightforward yes or no question.
"Would you support passing this health care bill if penalty for not paying fines associated with participating in the mandated insurance plan included imprisonment?"

If so, then you would send a lot of good people to prison. If not, then you are just nuts cause that is what you are doing. Your brother that you mention may or may not have the means or be in a position to fit nicely into some subsidized plan that you envision, but a lot of other people may not. And you would throw them under the bus (or in prison).

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 4:20 PM


ex-gop,
You the Obama party is all about cow-towing to the insurance comapnies who insist you mandate coverage and the pharmaceutical companies who insist US citizens pay twice the price that they export drugs to other countries. And you are selling out the American people cause Obama and his party have shown they don't give a rat's behind about anything substantive in the bill but just about passing something. Wait, they do care about one thing; they won't pass a bill that stops federal funds from subsidizing abortion. That is a helluva lot more important to them then reducing the cost of real health care for the American people.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 4:29 PM


truth - I didn't answer all your Obama criticisms because it's a moot point. He could run into a burning building and save a kid, and people who don't like him would yell he didn't save two. Same with Bush - those who didn't like him only will see the bad. It's not worth debating.

I think I've been the most straight-forward one in the discussion. I will admit I've had issues trying to figure out the questions at times that you are asking - you ramble a bit. I ramble at times as well - it's okay. It just makes it hard to find all the questions, so please don't accuse me of "dancing".

In regards to your direction question - yes. The hardship clause is something like 400% of poverty level. Anybody above that level can afford any plan out there - so not having insurance is simply reckless.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 4:43 PM


Lauren - the numbers simply don't point to what you are suggesting. My job works with military families and health care. Here's yet another release - from the DOD - tear it apart if you'd like:

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=1167

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 4:45 PM


truth - while I don't want to be accused of dancing again, I have no idea what to say to the post starting "You the Obama party". First, I'm not the Obama party, I'm an individual. And second, I'm not quite sure the point of it.

I believe I understand your second part though - and at least the Democrats are trying to reform health care. Bush was in control 8 years, and the only health care reform I know of was the Medicare Plan B plan, which I believe added much more to the debt than the projections of this plan (though I'd have to research a bit more).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 4:49 PM


ex-gop, it was an editing typo. SHould not have said You the Obam party, here it is again without the word "You" in front:

The Obama party is all about cow-towing to the insurance comapnies who insist you mandate coverage and the pharmaceutical companies who insist US citizens pay twice the price that they export drugs to other countries. And you are selling out the American people cause Obama and his party have shown they don't give a rat's behind about anything substantive in the bill but just about passing something. Wait, they do care about one thing; they won't pass a bill that stops federal funds from subsidizing abortion. That is a helluva lot more important to them then reducing the cost of real health care for the American people.


Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 4:54 PM


In regards to your direction question - yes. The hardship clause is something like 400% of poverty level. Anybody above that level can afford any plan out there - so not having insurance is simply reckless.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 4:43 PM

The emperor has spoken. Hear ye all who would rather not carry health insurance and just pay for your health care as you go...by mandate of the insurance industry thugs (the Obama administration) you are now forced to buy insurance coverage from a mandated plan that your benevolent leader oversees for your own good. Soon to be followed by you need to have certain medical treatment done to you and you are not allowed to smoke cigarettes cause you participate in a plan that does not allow it.

Sorry for the sarcasm but you have the makings of a tyrant and government forcing their specified brand of health coverage on it's citizens is a hulluva lot more scary then the possibility of some having no insurance. That kind of crap is not supposed to happen in the US. Your answer shows your statist leanings.

Let me give you the wikipedia for statism:
Statism (or etatism) is a term that may refer to either one or both of the following:

An economic position that includes a major state role in directing the economy or economic activity, both directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government or indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy.[1][2]
A political viewpoint "that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."[3]

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 5:09 PM


ex-gop,
i think most Amricans would rather take their chance with ilness than government control of their health.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 20, 2009 5:13 PM


EX-GOP, it's really pretty amazing how quickly liberals do 180's on political facts.

In 2007, we got stories like this "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401394.html

Now, suddenly, we're supposed to believe that VA hospitals offer premium care.

Posted by: Lauren at December 20, 2009 5:15 PM


Kristen - there's no definitive stat that exists (that I know of) - the lowest % I can find is 46% of plans cover abortion - highest is 90. Most say 60%-70% do.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 20, 2009 2:22 PM


Then why do you keep saying they do when you have no stat or study to prove it. You are doing exactly what the dems are doing. Blowing smoke to cover the lies.

Posted by: Kristen at December 20, 2009 5:59 PM


Hi! I just wanted to let everyone know that the web address of my blog has changed to:
http://mylifeinreflection.blogspot.com
if you will please update your bookmarks. Also, there will be new material covering pro-life and abortion issues, coming. Thanks!

Posted by: Rachael C. at December 20, 2009 6:08 PM


P*imps (and other overage abusers of underage girls) will be happy! Now they can get their stable of women/underage girls abortions more easily! Less $$$ out of their pocket - if this back alley solution to abortion holds as predicted above!!!

Posted by: thinkingabovemypaygrade at December 20, 2009 9:32 PM


Kristen - you asked "where are you getting that most..." - I showed where I'm getting most. "Most" means a majority. You never asked for a specific number. Don't say that I'm "blowing smoke", when I gave you exactly what you are looking for. Seriously, do a little research then if you're going to be a jerk about it.

truth - do a little research on the individual mandate - wikipedia actually is a good read on it. The odd thing is, it has made odd bed-fellows. You have GOP and Dem's that both support it - you also have everyone from moveon.org to heritage that are against it.

Now, with you statement on fines/imprisonments - let me ask you this - should we outlaw abortion and only slap a fine? If we're convinced something is wrong, then we should at least consider jail time. Again, there's a hardship exemption. Again, when somebody hits your vehicle and it uninsured, it hurts you. When somebody is uninsured and goes in at the last minute and has huge costs, that often hits you as well.

I'm sure you asked other things - I was working. If there's anything else, I'll answer anything.

I know there's frustration with a lot of folks out there right now - but really, I'm only buying it from folks who were even more p*ssed off about Medicare plan D. That was three times more reckless of a bill than this was - so if you're mad about this one, you should have been outraged by that one.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 21, 2009 8:08 PM


ex-gop said
"Now, with you statement on fines/imprisonments - let me ask you this - should we outlaw abortion and only slap a fine?"

Answer: No fines/imprisonment for the mother. For her counseling like we give o people with suicidal tendencies. Yes fines/imprisonmentfor the abortionist.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 22, 2009 10:17 AM


ex-gop said
"Now, with you statement on fines/imprisonments - let me ask you this - should we outlaw abortion and only slap a fine?"

Answer: No fines/imprisonment for the mother. For her counseling like we give to people with suicidal tendencies. Yes fines/imprisonment for the abortionist.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 22, 2009 10:18 AM


ex-gop,
Everything tat is wrong with this health bill you justify by pointing to other people or other things that you think were worse. Once again your response is to point to the fact that some members of the GOP voted for the mandate and you just couldn't help but justify this pig of bill by pointing to Bush's medicade bill. I think the AMA needs to look into a new illness named DBS - Deranged Bush Syndrome, where people spend the rest of their lives justifying all kinds of evil they do today due to Bush. Take an honest look at what you are doing. Your response to problems with this health care bill is to say they are not as bad as what some other bill did so it is ok. That is irresponsible and childish debate.

And you can't compare auto insurance coverage to health care insurance. If I don't want car insurance I get rid of my car and quit driving because driving a car is a privilege. It has almost no correlation to mandated health insurance which control of ones own body. Do you seriously not see they are completely different?
Do you consider yourself a statist?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 22, 2009 10:31 AM


Ex-GOP, clearly you don't believe the unborn child is a person.

What if a woman eviscerates her 1-year-old child? Just slap a fine, offer counseling?

Counseling like they give suicidal people? She didn't commit suicide. She murdered her own child. She should be treated like it. She should have the exact same penalty for killing an unborn child as for a fully born child. Exactly the same. Because the act IS exactly the same, if the unborn child is a real, unique, living human being.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at December 22, 2009 11:04 AM



Kristen - you asked "where are you getting that most..." - I showed where I'm getting most. "Most" means a majority. You never asked for a specific number. Don't say that I'm "blowing smoke", when I gave you exactly what you are looking for. Seriously, do a little research then if you're going to be a jerk about it.


Waa, waa, waa... USUALLY when you make a statement you have something to back it up with, meaning a REAL statistic/number. I need to do some research? Please! Your "research" is a joke. You didn't even site a source, just a few % numbers you probably pulled out of your you know where. Why do I need to do research on something you stated? Shouldn't you be able to back up your words? Don't make me laugh!

Posted by: Kristen at December 22, 2009 5:31 PM


Jamie - please reread the past threads - the person I was debating with - I believe a usual on this board (truthseeker) is the one who said just a fine. Not me.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 22, 2009 7:01 PM


truth - it looks like there's two things to respond to.

First of all, I think it is crazy that you would pass an abortion law to outlaw abortion (seemingly and obviously because somebody is killing a person), yet you'd say "counseling". Already a pro-lifer has called you out on it - so I won't debate it more with you unless you'd like. A fine doesn't curb behavior for folks who can afford the fine. Imprisonment, or even the threat, is much better at curbing behavior.

In regards to the Bush part - let me just put a little more context to this. What I'm trying to say is, it's hard for me to take some groups seriously when they are outraged now, but weren't outraged when something happened from the party they support. For instance, the "cartoons" from the other day on this site regarding government spending. I'm fine with somebody being outraged now, but they better have been outraged in the past - if not, then they are simply being political and not really upset about that issue. It's hard in this debate to see GOP members that voted for the Medicare plan talk about reckless spending with this plan. It's a bit like somebody preaching about marriage and then going and cheating on their spouse. I know, I know - everyone needs to move past Bush - but it's a valid comparison to what is going on now if you ask me - at least if we're quoting and looking at a political party and what they are saying about a bill. We always need context.

On the insurance - yes, there is a difference, but is driving much of a choice? At least outside big cities, if you're an adult, you drive. Yes, you are correct, somebody could revolt and choose not to drive. How many of those folks do you know? That's why I think it, in part, is a valid comparison.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 22, 2009 7:11 PM


ex-gop said:
First of all, I think it is crazy that you would pass an abortion law to outlaw abortion (seemingly and obviously because somebody is killing a person), yet you'd say "counseling".

Answer: Cause she didn't kill the baby. The abortionist WOULD go to jail cause they kill the baby.
**************

And as far as putting things in context. Obama is doing more deficit spending in his first year then Bush did in his entire presidency. But in either case a prior presidents errors don't negate or somehow excuse the current one do they.
**************

Let's get down to what I see as the crux of the debate here, it is the question I have brought up and which you have avoided addressing twice now. Do you consider yourself to be a statist?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 22, 2009 10:35 PM


Truth - lets just wrap this up and be done with it - I've been more than kind during this whole ordeal - and the last few times I've been clear that I'm answering everything that I can figure out the question to. Let's face it - we could talk for 100 more posts and we wouldn't agree on things.

It will take 5 more posts for you to properly define your definition of a "statist", and in between you'll accuse me of a half dozen things based on me trying to figure out your own definition. So I don't think it even matters at this point - and furthermore, my guess is 30 other people are getting emails every time we keep talking, and really, are we getting anywhere?

Have a merry Christmas though - maybe I'll bump into you on another thread.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 23, 2009 7:56 PM


So trying to justify the Barack Hussein's lack of "transparency" and Reid's whoring to get this bill passed has been an ordeal for you? What does that tell you...lol

Yes you are a statist. That is why your idealogical leanings prevent you form seeing any wrong with government and "state" welfare taking precedent over any individuals rights.

Let me give you the wikipedia for statism:
Statism (or etatism) is a term that may refer to either one or both of the following:

An economic position that includes a major state role in directing the economy or economic activity, both directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government or indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy.[1][2]
A political viewpoint "that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism, which as seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."[3]

Posted by: truthseeker at December 23, 2009 10:54 PM


Look - in regards to health care, individual rights take the back seat to corporate interests every day. I'm glad that the government is stepping in - I wish they had gone farther quite frankly. One senator made sure at least 85% of premiums went to actual care - because some plans have as little as 60% going towards actual health care. Another big one was pre-existing conditions. If keeping the current status quo of letting insurance companies discriminate on previous conditions - if that is better for "individual rights" - well, I can point you to a few folks with those conditions to ask if the government should stay out of health care and these "rights" they have.

Another question - why did you use "Hussein"?

Sure, there's a lot not to like about the bill and the process. I believe the process was started with good intentions. Unfortunately, for BOTH political parties, when they are in the minority, they tend to whine, cry, point fingers, and work not to do anything constructive with the hopes of making the majority party look bad so that they get voted out power. We desperately need a third party if you ask me so that these parties have to work to do something good. Again, I believe health care reform is needed. I think everyone would agree with that (well, maybe not those making a million a year, but most of us average folks). While I don't think the byproduct is perfect, or even near it - I think it will be a massive fundamental step in the right direction for the American people.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 24, 2009 11:54 AM


You are correct that we agree about the need for reform. But not at the cost of government take-over and piling on of debt. When was last time in history government ran anything efficiently? It is obvious that their entire process for handling affairs is based upon payola and bribery. Put government overseeing health care and those "who know someone" or those who have "favors" to pay will get the best care. And there is no way any rational person would believe their cost estimates. This is going to add another layer of bureaucracy and expense and there is "no free lunch". Taxpayers are footing the bill for the pre-existing conditions coverage wether you realize it or not. And there are so many pet projects and payoffs and bad things in this bill that it is actually a huge step in the wrong direction. Not only are we going to be paying for the positive changes, we are going to be paying many times more then the benefits received because the government is involved. Remember the government wastes tens of times more in money then ends up actually being used on their projects. Don't delude yourself that the government can use our tax dollars even close to as efficiently as the people who they take it from. How many trillion dollars in debt is Medicare right now? And they are stealing more money form it just to get this off the ground. They are a power/spending drunk gambler doubling down cause they can and we need to stop them NOW.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 24, 2009 6:52 PM


massive step in the right direction......i'd be laughing if it wasn't going to screw my children so badly.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 24, 2009 6:54 PM


truth -

How are your kids going to get screwed so badly in this bill? I'm assuming you are talking in regards to the national debt.

Are you and your family making more than half a million a year? Or is it that you are on a Cadillac Health care plan?

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 26, 2009 8:36 AM