UPDATE, 11:24a: A National Right to Life email alert reminds us that the House switchboard line may be overloaded, as I just learned.
You can get direct-dial numbers for any House office by typing in your zip code at the NRLC Legislative Action Center here. Also, the NRLC Legislative Action Center has U.S. House fax numbers and district office phone numbers here.
UPDATE, 11a: Had a hard time getting through to tell my rep to vote YES on Stupak/Pitts Amendment (and NO on socialized healthcare!). Lines are jammed. Finally did. Have you made your call TODAY? 202-224-3121.
10:47a: I guess the debate about abortion in healthcare has been wild, according to Michelle Malkin on Twitter, although I missed it til now. Here's a link to watch it yourself...
President Obama will be speaking from the Rose Garden today at 1:15pm ET. I'm tuning in to hear what he has to say about abortion in healthcare (if he does at all)...should be interesting.Posted by: Marie at November 7, 2009 12:08 PM
Clearly, even if all objections to health care reform involving abortion are resolved, the "pro life" crowd will oppose health care reform, because the are right wing extremists who want Obama and the Democrats to "fail" without regard to what is best for the people and the country. Orrin Hatch recently admitted the far right and the GOP oppose any and all health care reform solely because if the Dems succeed, the voters will be so grateful that the GOP is finished.Posted by: Bystander at November 7, 2009 12:18 PM
BS'er, they have medications to counteract delusional thinking these days. I recommend you check with your doctor, while you still have the choice of who you see.Posted by: Elisabeth at November 7, 2009 12:36 PM
Here's that conversation:
HATCH: That's their goal. Move people into government that way. Do it in increments. They've actually said it. They've said it out loud.
Q: This is a step-by-step approach --
HATCH: A step-by-step approach to socialized medicine. And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, "All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party."
Q: They'll have reduced the American people to dependency on the federal government.
HATCH: Yeah, you got that right. That's their goal. That's what keeps Democrats in power.
Bystander, I'd rather not be addicted to government help. I don't want to be a slave to the government. I feel really bad that you're ok with it.
btw, President Obama looked a bit peeved in his very, very brief speech. Good. Thngs must be moving along in the RIGHT direction.Posted by: Marie at November 7, 2009 12:45 PM
Actually, Marie I would prefer a private health insurance system, if there were a functional system, such as for auto insurance, where there is competition and cost control, and where insurance is readily available to nearly everyone at reasonable cost. Unfortunately, that is not the case with private health insurance.
If auto insurance were handled like health insurance, any 17 year old who got a ticket for a burned out tail light would be uninsurable for the rest of his or her life, and the company would spend thousands battling whether a $25 headlight rim had to be replaced after a wreck.
I am blackballed and uninsurable for life due to a routine heart procedure 15 years ago. The removal of the health insurance company's ability to deny coverage for a pre existing condition is literally a matter of life and death to me and millions of others.
Since the private health insurance industry does not provide coverage for anyone except those in absolutely perfect health, with no prior medical treatment, and since health insurance companies refuse to reform themselves or engage in fair competition, health reform is necessary.Posted by: Bystander at November 7, 2009 1:08 PM
Well, Jill, I took your advice and went to the NRLC site to get the direct line to my rep.
It took me less than 30 seconds to reach a staffer at my rep's office and leave the message to vote YES on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
Then I had a minute left over to email some friends in my area, urging then to do the same.
Thanks, NRLC, for making it so easy for busy moms!Posted by: Mary Ann at November 7, 2009 1:15 PM
Bystander 1:08 PM,
I'm sorry to hear about your past health problem and I hope it's not one anymore for you!
I agree. Pre-exsiting conditions lead to discrimination with private insurance companies. I have a child who had a cyst on the back. I had it removed/tested and it was benign. Thank God. But just having the test and removal exempted my child from private insurance from many companies. I didn't give up. I searched and applied, and was finally accepted by a private insurance company. The rates are high for the coverage I want, so I had to settle for the minimum. Which is fine. But I understand and am sympathetic to your situation.
Bystander, do you think if it was allowable for private insurance companies to "cross state borders" it would help? I want it fixed as badly as you do, but I don't agree with going to the extreme (1.2T over 10yrs. and nearly 2,000 pages) is the answer. I don't feel like the whole healthcare system needs to be deleted and started again from scratch...I think it just needs to be tweaked.
The way I see it, there's 2 problems. People with pre-existing conditions, and the uninsured. You'd think there would be an easier solution to these problems.
Unfortunately, we cannot stop the bickering and division in Washington, but fortunately, there IS bickering and division in Washington. I wouldn't want a totaltarian system. Which is what I think Orrin Hatch was saying. Would you? no checks/no balances?
health insurance companies refuse to reform themselves or engage in fair competition
Be fair, bystander! The feds have limited the ways they can compete. You are right that we need reform. It's people like you that have been uninsurable that I believe should be addressed as first priorty in reform.
It's unfortunate that the bill fails in that regard. You may benefit in the short term but in the long term you're going to be restricted, just as you are now. It's one of my reasons for opposing the bill.Posted by: Fed Up at November 7, 2009 2:46 PM
according to Congressional Budget Office, this reform bill wills save federal taxpayers 100 billion dollars over 10 years. I like the sound of that.Posted by: Hal at November 7, 2009 3:27 PM
Marie, I agree that the primary problems are exclusion for preexisting conditions and the uninsured, along with huge amounts of waste due to health providers having to spend much of their time fighting with insurance companies, which would be reduced if coverage and payments were standardized, similar to Medicare reimbursement.
Unfortunately, the insurance companies will not budge on the ability to deny coverage. which is the key to their profitability. The president of United Healthcare made one billion,(yes, a Billion) dollars last year, due to their success in denying coverage and claims in bad faith.
The unconscionable tactics of health insurance companies requires comprehensive reform. The insurance companies have spread fear and misinformation to protect their profits. Health care reform is not "totalitarianism" or "socialism" or "death panels", all of which are scare tactics by the health insurors, and their lobbyists to protect their billions in profits made on the backs of ordinary Americans.
Health insurance reform is also opposed by corrupt congressmen and senators. For example, Joe Lieberman is literally owned by the health insurance companies. He and his wife make millions from selling his votes to protect them.
As for me, I would rather have comprehensive health care reform than die under the status quo, or the "GOP plan", which preserves the right of the insurance companies to deny coverage and claims.
It is ironic that many who might benefit most from health care reform oppose it because of the campaign of misinformation by the insurance companies, their lobbyists and paid politicians.
Posted by: Bystander
at November 7, 2009 3:43 PM
Actually, Bystander. I want obamacare to fail because Medicare is currently denies a higher percentage of claims than any other insurance provider. I don't want rationing of care, nor do I want obligations to die put in as cost cutting measures.
Government healthcare hurts the most vunerable Americans. It is for that reason, I oppose its passage even if it doesn't cover abortions.Posted by: lauren at November 7, 2009 4:48 PM
the "GOP plan", which preserves the right of the insurance companies to deny coverage and claims.
WRONG. The bill you currently support gives insurance companies immunity, bystander. The video below explains.
Or if you prefer, here's an article.
www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56642Posted by: Fed Up at November 7, 2009 5:09 PM
"according to Congressional Budget Office, this reform bill wills save federal taxpayers 100 billion dollars over 10 years. I like the sound of that."
Posted by: Hal at November 7, 2009 3:27 PM
Do math much, Hal? After the grocery clerk hands you your receipt and tells you "you saved $20.00 by using your store savings card", do you say, "woo-hoo! I just made twenty bucks!
I can't believe you posted that.
10/15/09 HARRY REID: "He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesnt it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent."
Posted by: Marie
at November 7, 2009 5:41 PM
Bystander replied, "Marie, I agree that the primary problems are exclusion for preexisting conditions and the uninsured, along with huge amounts of waste due to health providers having to spend much of their time fighting with insurance companies, which would be reduced if coverage and payments were standardized, similar to Medicare reimbursement."
What about the corruption in the Medicare program? Add what, 54 million more people (at least) to a government-run system and what would the corruption #'s look like then? I'm not saying it's government corruption, it's private citizens taking advantage of it...including doctors. How much more of a financial beating can this country take?
Bystander said, "Health care reform is not "totalitarianism" or "socialism" or "death panels", all of which are scare tactics by the health insurors, and their lobbyists to protect their billions in profits made on the backs of ordinary Americans.
I wasn't saying that totaltarianism would be a result IF healthcare reform passed. I was replying to your Orrin Hatch comment, and what he was implying. No, I wouldn't want a totaltarinism system, and no, I don't believe it will ever happen here in the US. IF healthcare reform is passed, and let's say for sake of argument that everyone is happy, then maybe yes, the democrats will have a GREAT 2010 and 2010. HOWEVER, people by nature are not content. They may get what they want and be happy...for a while...but they will always want more. One flub-up from either party, and the following election the other will prevail. It's just how things go. How easily we forget...
Posted by: Marie
at November 7, 2009 5:53 PM
"GREAT 2010 and 2010" (I meant to write 2010 & 2012)
fat finger alert!Posted by: Marie at November 7, 2009 5:58 PM
Posted by: Bystander at November 7, 2009 12:18 PM
Clearly, even if all objections to health care reform involving abortion are resolved, the "pro life" crowd will oppose health care reform, because the are right wing extremists who want Obama and the Democrats to "fail" without regard to what is best for the people and the country.
Two points of correction:
1. Right wingers, extreme and average alike,
want B.O. and the liberals to fail because of their regard for what is best for people and for the country.
2. Not all pro-lifers are right wingers.
I know that complicates things for your challenged thinking processes, but GOD can fix stupid.
Just ask HIM.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at November 7, 2009 6:36 PM
Stupak Amendment debate is on C-SPAN now.Posted by: Janet at November 7, 2009 6:50 PM
Stupak debate: Blah, blah, blah, Taken right out of Cecile Richards' playbook.Posted by: Janet at November 7, 2009 6:53 PM
Off-topic but this may interest you.
Elfriede Harth, former European representative of "Catholics" for Choice defends taking money from porn merchants:
Most Americans did not consider Playboy pornography.
Read the rest on Anti Catholics for Choice WatchPosted by: Justine at November 7, 2009 8:02 PM
Real Catholics are Loyal To the Teachings of Jesus. No Aborton. No Porn Money. No BS about so 'called ' "Catholics for choice". Catholic's No NOT Support a Choice To Murder Babies. Period!Posted by: markie at November 7, 2009 9:15 PM
240 yay, 194 nay / agreement-Stupak.
Thank you pro-life Democrats!
Stupak amendment just passed! Thank God for this victory. Now let's pray it remains in the final bill.Posted by: Jennifer at November 7, 2009 9:27 PM
I'd rather the bill didn't pass. I actually kinda worry now, because this might make it passable now. >_Posted by: xalisae at November 7, 2009 9:49 PM
Stupak is in there, but the pro-aborts lied about not voting for the bill if the Stupak-Pitts amendment was in there. Of course.
I fully expect Stupak-Pitts to get stripped out in committee, just like they did with the ACORN passages that went into the crapper.
The bill passed 220-215 how sad. Michael Steele RNC Chairman says he believes they will try to sneak abortion and covering illegal immigrants back into this bill when they put the final touches on this bill.Posted by: Prolifer L at November 7, 2009 10:22 PM
It's really disheartening to see America sinking deeper and deeper into immorality.
The Obama administration is doing things that shouldn't be done.Posted by: Joshua Tan at November 7, 2009 10:40 PM
while I am glad that the Stupak amendment passed, I am still worried because Planned Parenthood's explicit sex ed is in the bill, there is still rationing, there is still EUTHANASIA and there is still unethical research on HUMAN embryos included.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at November 7, 2009 10:53 PM
As, I said above, even if the abortion issue is resolved, the "pro lifers" will oppose the bill because they are right wing extremists who want Obama and the Dems to fail, without regard to the best interests of the country. Thanks for proving me right. Why do you hate your country so much?
And thanks to the congressmen who stood up the the health insurance lobby lies and the GOP obstructionists.Posted by: Bystander at November 8, 2009 8:09 AM
I could be wrong, but I believe the pro-lifers will oppose the bill because of rationing and "death panels.". pro-lifers are pro-life for all life, you know?
Please don't tell me there are no death panels or rationing, because I'll just come back with "like your side said over & over again that there was no federal funding for abortion" in it, either?Posted by: Marie at November 8, 2009 8:13 AM
I love my country - it is the greatest country in the world (bet you won't say that!) - and I happen to want it to stay great!
That's why I oppose the health bill, Bystander. It's as unAmerican as you can get!Posted by: bethany at November 8, 2009 8:01 PM
oh yeah, BS'er, my family and I hate our country, that's why my husband spent two years+ of his life fighting overseas to protect her, and I gave birth to our son in my hospital bed alone, when otherwise he would've been here to see it, which he desperately wanted, right?
Tell me, please, what have YOU done for our country lately?Posted by: xalisae at November 9, 2009 1:57 PM