Pro-life Democrats: Stir over abortion funding in high risk pools much ado about nothing
I’ve been writing today (here and here) about the controversy surrounding the discovery that MD, NM, and PA had planned to use federal funds received for their Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans via Obamacare for abortions until National Right to Life exposed them.
According to ABC News, a spokesperson for the PA Insurance Dept. said the abortion funding language in its PCIP “was just ‘a placeholder‘ and that ‘the bottom line is we will abide by all federal regulations….'”
Sure.
Kristen Day, head of Democrats for Life, forwarded me her group’s statement, adding, “People may not like my response but here it is”…
Following the announcement that PA will receive $160 million to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions are able to get health insurance under the new health care law, NRLC accused President Obama of allowing public funds to be used for abortion. The Administration quickly responded to inquiries from Democrats for Life of America and pro-life Democratic Congressional leaders to make clear that this will not be the case….
“We appreciate the leadership of our pro-life Democrats in Congress who are able to work closely with the Administration to ensure that no public funds will be used for abortion. The intent of the Executive Order will be adhered to,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America. “While Republicans continue to mischaracterize aspects of the health reform bill, we will work to ensure the law provides affordable and accessible health care for millions of Americans while upholding the longstanding ban on public funding of abortion.”
So DFL’s position is the administration was unaware of the loophole and quickly plugged it when discovered. I do know Kristen was on the phone with White House and DHHS reps Tuesday night.
Rep. Bart Stupak holds the same position, according to CNS News yesterday:
“This is the latest example of some right to life groups politicizing life issues in an effort to undermine health care reform,” Stupak said. “The President’s Executive Order makes clear that federal funds may not be used for abortion under the Affordable Care Act – including the (high-risk) insurance pools currently being implemented in PA and states across the country.
Stupak noted that in accordance with President Obama’s Executive Order, DHHS has told states that federal funds provided under the new health care law may not be used to fund abortion. “HHS has reiterated this policy in response to the current accusations from the National Right to Life Committee,” Stupak said.
“While these recycled scare tactics may make for good headlines, we should not lose sight of the fact that tens of thousands of individuals across the nation who have been denied coverage by health insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions will for the first time have access to affordable health insurance. We need to take a whole life approach to health care which looks out for those who are out of the womb as well as those in the womb,” Stupak concluded.
When Obamacare was signed, both pro-life groups and pro-abort groups agreed Obama’s accompanying Executive Order supposedly clarifying that federal funds would not pay for abortion was worthless. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards called the EO a “symbolic gesture.” Only pro-life Democrats maintained it held merit.
The same scenario holds true in this case. Both pro-lifers and pro-aborts agree PCIPs were not covered by Obama’s EO. Richards wrote in a statement today, “[W]e are deeply disappointed that the administration has voluntarily and unnecessarily decided to impose limits on private funds used to purchase health insurance coverage for abortion care in the new high-risk insurance pools.
Again, only pro-life Democrats think otherwise.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What is a PCIP?
Why don’t the pro-lifers get together and ask Congress write a NEW Hyde Amendment to specifically cover Obama Care so as to avoid ANY misunderstandings on all fronts in the future.
Hi Janet. PCIP stands for Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan. You can find out more at http://www.pcip.gov
How many folks out there have called their insurance company (often times employer covered) and asked if their specific plan covers abortion, or other plans from that company?
Fed Up,
Thanks for the answer to my question. I should have read more carefully!
* * *
Ex-GOP Voter,
I haven’t, but it’s an excellent idea.
* * *
“We need to take a whole life approach to health care which looks out for those who are out of the womb as well as those in the womb,” Stupak concluded.”
So, when push comes to shove, which is more important to him, the abortion issue or everything else?
Jill,
The ‘Pro-Life Dems’ and Obama have proven themselves untrustworthy on this issue. The pro-abort Dems will try to slip buttresses for abortion in wherever they can. Then when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, Kristen Day and Bart Stupak appear on scene to castigate the authentic pro-lifers whose vigilance exposed the nefarious activity.
Jill, you have been beyond gracious and kind to Kristen Day and her fellow travelers in the Democrat ‘pro-life’ caucus. However, this latest broadside from Day and Stupak seals their ugly character for me. It’s’ party first’, principle second for this crew, and will ever be thus.
Kristen is a self-deluded shill for the very worst humans among us. Her attacks against the rest of us are nauseating.
Thanks for opening my eyes.
which is more important to him, the abortion issue or everything else?
Stupak said he’d vote for Obamacare even if it included abortion funding. Perhaps that helps to answer your question?
Really, Kristen.
At some point you have to face reality and accept that you and DFL have been taken for utter fools. Amazing how much damage control DFL is engaging in these days.
This whole Obamacare Tripe is being exposed almost on a daily basis, and you’re still insisting that it’s “affordable and accessible”.
Whitecastle and IHOP announced that Obamacare implementation would significantly cut into their net income. Among other companies, I must add.
The White House admitted recently that turning people away from the high risk pools is not off the table.
The National Taxpayer Advocate confirmed that the new responsibility required of the IRS under the legislation would saddle the agency with billions of dollars in additional expenses that are not accounted for in the bill.
We get the gift of at least 159–count ’em,–159 new federal agencies.
The Associated Press reported how emergency rooms would be overflowing due to Obamacare.
Now we have the Healthcare Redistributionist himself, Berwick, chomping at the bit to ration healthcare “with our eyes wide open.”
And that’s just scratching the surface.
You really want to work “to ensure the law provides affordable and accessible healthcare for millions…”? You’ll have to work a little harder.
FedUp – I think a person could make the case to vote for it even if it included abortion coverage. I think the new stat out by Gallup is that 1 in 6 Americans are uninsured at this point. Do you not think that economics and insurance play a factor in abortion? My wife is pregnant now – we’ve paid over a grand out of pocket, and I have great insurance. Economics/insurance are a HUGE part of the abortion decision. I think the GOP platform right now should be worrisome to pro-lifers…cut all government programs for the poor and can “entitlement” spending. Well, when the poor have no money, it will be much cheaper for them to get abortions than try to pay for medical services.
Now we have the Healthcare Redistributionist himself, Berwick, chomping at the bit to ration healthcare “with our eyes wide open.”
Not to mention the fact that he and his spouse are both are assured of private insurance coverage for the rest of their lives. If his ideas are so great, will he cancel his coverage to rely on Medicare when he reaches age 65?
EGV, congrats to you and your wife! I hope she is feeling well.
I understand that you are pro-PPACA but as you well know, I am opposed to it even if it were certain that abortion funding was excluded. Reckless spending in DC isn’t going to keep our nation solvent to help the impoverished, is it? I do not understand why it takes an ever increasing number of federal bureaucrats with bloated salaries to help the poor.
it will be much cheaper for them to get abortions than try to pay for medical services
Most of those you are referring to will be put on Medicaid. As you are aware, more providers are limiting the number of Medicaid patients they accept or opting out altogether. What good is coverage when you can’t get access? Putting these people into a program we already know is a failure is a disservice IMHO.
I have a question for Kristin Day, Are any of the ‘Dems for Life’ also members of ‘Catholics for Choice’?
Jill,
Why is Cecile Richards saying the restriction is on private funds when Kathleen Sebelius has stressed that the state PCIP’s will be entirely funded by federal dollars?
Dr. Nadal summed this up perfectly.
FedUp –
Thanks for the congrats.
I find the argument that health care spending for poor people is reckless – I find that much like the argument that we should abort babies because it is a cheaper option. If it is the moral thing to do, cost shouldn’t be the number one driver. Anyways, the CBO came out with a good read on Medicaid just recently that you might want to read.
As a nation, we have to dramatically shift away from our current health care model or we go bankrupt anyways – we are at a pace that can’t be sustained. The status quo is simply not an option. I’m happy that finally an administration had the guts to do something (other than pass a massive unfunded expansion drug bill! – thanks Bush!).
Neither of us really know what will happen long term – but I think it is a step in the right direction.
Wow….the pro-life Democrats are so GULLIBLE! All you have to do is bat your eyes at them and they’ll believe anything you say! Good to know, good to know.
Jennifer asked, “Jill, Why is Cecile Richards saying the restriction is on private funds when Kathleen Sebelius has stressed that the state PCIP’s (high risk pools) will be entirely funded by federal dollars?”
Jennifer, Richards is being disingenuous. With these high risk pools, public funding pays for a portion of one’s high risk health insurance, and one also pays a portion – like most work places.
For instance, Maryland is receiving $85 mil to operate its high risk pool but those participating still have to pay a premium. From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063005751_pf.html” target=_blank):
Maryland residents who enroll in the federal program will have an annual deductible of $1,500, state officials said. Premiums will range from $141 a month for individuals under 30, to $354 per month for residents 65 and older. Nationwide, premiums will range from about $140 to $900 a month.
So Richards is only telling half the truth. The point is pro-lifers want NO federal funding to go toward abortion, and if Maryland’s PCIP included abortion coverage, it would.
“Neither of us really know what will happen long term – but I think it is a step in the right direction.”
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 17, 2010 8:38 AM
Basic economics tells us you can’t spend more money than you have, or borrow more than you have the ability to pay back. Spend, spend, spend, is the right direction regarding healthcare? Do you remember the days, not that long ago, when people paid for healthcare out of their own pocket? We used to say “save for a rainy day” and “don’t you know, money doesn’t grow on trees”. Let’s think first, act second.
Regarding pro-life Democrats, free healthcare, etc…
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Janet –
Your suggestion is completely valid depending on how you answer this question.
If a kid with a bad heart needs massive medical care, and his/her family has no insurance, what should we do and who should pay?
Hi EGV. I never said that “health care spending for poor people is reckless.” I was referring to reckless spending in general. With respect to health care, there was no need to massively expand government to address health care reform. The costs of 100+ bureaucracies take away resources that I believe could be better spent elsewhere.
we have to dramatically shift away from our current health care model or we go bankrupt anyways
You said that “If it is the moral thing to do, cost shouldn’t be the number one driver.” Did you intend that statement to apply everyone or just the poor and uninsured? It’s an interesting statement given that the model the Dems have chosen disincentivizes–and in some instances even penalizes–providers for rendering the best care instead of less costly forms of care for certain patients and diagnoses. The Dem model also doesn’t reduce costs at the point of service, it shifts them across a broader base of payers. So what you’re left with is cost savings (if they materialize) through rationing of services based on provider disincentives and government protocols for care.
Neither of us really know what will happen long term
True. But in the short term, like many others I know in health care, I’m working on a career change. There’s a silver lining to making less money now. I’m paying fewer taxes to fund the PPACA monstrosity :)
Apologies to Jill and the mods for derailing from the topic of taxpayer funded abortions. Have a good weekend, EGV.
Hi Jill,
It’s time … time we looked at far-better alternatives than the kind of medicine now practiced. Ex-Gop says it well, just doesn’t go far enough … “As a nation, we have to dramatically shift away from our current health care model or we go bankrupt anyways – we are at a pace that can’t be sustained. The status quo is simply not an option. I’m happy that finally an administration had the guts to do something (other than pass a massive unfunded expansion drug bill! – thanks Bush!).
Neither of us really know what will happen long term – but I think it is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 17, 2010 8:38 AM”
I get this magazine on Life Extension – http://www.lef.org . The editorial this month was about the overuse of CT and PET scans. Thes scans (often essential and give great pictures are a huge source of radiation. It kills thousands and thousands of Americans each year (estimate).
There is little doubt that some of these scans are absolutely indispensable, but the majority (your tax-insurance $$$) are also funding your death from cancer and heart disease.
THE FAULT with Obamacare is the silly belief that fixing the way medicine is paid for (insurance) gives any assurance of improvement in health delivery. Getting more folks into a badly-leaking boat (without stopping the holes), is prime folly. All this means, is there will be many more unnecessary funerals … maybe you folks!
“Your suggestion is completely valid depending on how you answer this question.”
“If a kid with a bad heart needs massive medical care, and his/her family has no insurance, what should we do and who should pay?”
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 17, 2010 11:05 AM
I’m no expert, but let’s start with the question, what is “massive medical care” in this case and what is the cost? Some private options – it’s very common for family and friends to hold fund-raisers for families. I understand that hospitals can set up payment plans that will work for the family, and sometimes doctors will reduce or forgive fees totally on a case by case basis. Certainly you know that ObamaCare is not going to provide treatments for FREE. Perhaps others can elaborate on options that are available in the case you present.
Thanks, Jill. Of course , I knew Richards was being deceitful. I just thought it made her look very idiotic to be talking about private funds when the plans are federally-funded. I didn’t know that people would have a premium to pay.
And as you said, the point is the promise made was no federal dollars whatsoever and that promise is being broken all over the place. Richards and NARAL and the whole lot of them don’t want an abortion option — they want an abortion mandate, plain and simple.
Thanks for the great work, Jill.
Janet – let’s say the kid needs a heart transplant (average cost that I found is about $700K).
So, fund raisers?
I’m not trying to pick on you – I’m trying to say that the thought of just leaving 1/6 of the country uninsured is reckless to those folks – plus those who are insured that pick up the bill anyways. I mean, people talk about all this reckless spending to pay for more people to have insurance…does that mean these people have NO care now and are simply left to die? Nope – taxpayers pay for it anyways.
Certainly you know that ObamaCare is not going to provide treatments for FREE. Posted by: Janet at July 17, 2010 12:47 PM
Yep, out-of-pocket percentages are something PPACA advocates don’t usually mention. These expenses will be prohibitive for many familes.
It’s interesting that EGV inquires about a child with heart disease in his scenario. PPACA has a provision to penalize hospitals with higher-than-average readmission rates for Medicare patients with heart failure, even though we know higher readmission corresponds to increased survival.
The child in EGV’s example will likely qualify for Medicaid, placing him under CMS’ new rationing advocate Donald Berwick. Who in their right mind wants the likes of Berwick and Dr “Complete Lives” Emanuel making policy decisions that affect the lives of their disabled or chronically ill children?
the thought of just leaving 1/6 of the country uninsured is reckless to those folks – plus those who are insured that pick up the bill anyways
Please don’t insult the uninsured. Many do actually pay their bills without insurance and will continue doing so despite PPACA because the penalty will be cheaper than premiums and paying out of pocket is more affordable for them. What PPACA did for them was remove their option to purchase catastrophic coverage.
BTW taxpayers don’t always pick up the tab. There are many safety net programs that don’t receive a single dime of taxpayer funding.
The status quo is simply not an option.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 17, 2010 8:38 AM
Obama’s is an unsustainable presidency burdening generations to come. And they’ll have crappier health care because of it unles government control is repealed….. If beaurocrats getting
involved in our health care decisions is the status quo then health care privacy is unsustainable. The government will monitor every doctors appointment and every prescription and yes, every abortion decision people make. Lumping abortion in with health care will greatly limit abortion access along with every other personal decision people are making.
RINO, you are one of the few, the proud, the kool-aid drinkers who still buy into the “change” mantra even knowing that the change is really just growing the size of the bureaucratic tit so you and your fellow socialists in the Democratic party can continue sucking up to it. If that is the status quo you are looking for then move to Cuba. It’s really not that far away.
RINO, unbury your face from the Socialist Democratic tit long enough to look up and see that they have you under a spell and offer you and everybody else to suck as long and as much as you like so they can stay in power.
The government will monitor …
TS, you forgot BMI. The feds are on a mission to track the corpulent. Wonder if the surgeon general will make hers public :-P
Lumping abortion in with health care will greatly limit abortion access along with every other personal decision people are making.
Posted by: truthseeker at July 17, 2010 1:39 PM
I should have said it “could” limit abortion access. Under the Dem’s it would be government encouraging abortion for the cost savings compared to a life of Obamacare. Under a conservative leadership abortion access will be limited by bureaucrats.
What is wrong with charity to help sick kids? What is wrong with fundraisers? What is wrong with helping our neighbors who are sick? I don’t mind giving money of MY OWN FREE WILL to a charity to help the sick. I just don’t want the government to forcibly remove large chunks of my income against my will where it is then funneled through so much money-sucking bureacracy that the amount of money actually reaching those in need is pennies on the actual original dollar stolen.
Government is not a provider. I don’t know why that is such a hard concept for some people to grasp.
Many thanks once more to pro life hero Kristin Day – in the trenches winning battles for human rights and womens health every day, and having to endure the incessant partisan vitriol from people trying to split the pro life movement rather than welcome and congratulate new allies getting real results.
I’ll bet more than 25% of people who call themselves pro life still fund health insurance providers that in turn pay for elective abortions. Add to that all those paying tuition to universities that do them IN HOUSE, and it becomes a bit odd that they are so obsessed with the minutia regarding federal funds in the health care bill. Planned Parenthood already gets millions of dollars from the government, folks. Lets join Kristin Day and Bart Stupak in trying to tackle that mountain instead of obsessing about this molehill.
“Government is not a provider. I don’t know why that is such a hard concept for some people to grasp.”
Posted by: Sydney M. at July 17, 2010 2:51 PM
So true. Insurance was meant to be a safety net for crises, not a way to get yearly dental exams or physicals.
***
Fed Up,
A relative of mine recently went in to see a dentist and asked the dentist how much he owed him for his service (pulling out his checkbook). The dentist looked at him in shock. It shouldn’t be that way. Our healthcare would be much less expensive if doctors received cash instead of having to hire people to file complicated paperwork with insurance companies, get pre-approvals before providing treatments, etc… Another dentist I know requires a social security number for any patient of his who he extends credit too. I doubt it is legal to require it and I don’t know how that will help him with his billing collections.
Sean,
Try not to take this personally –
Eliminating elective abortions is not an obsession. Everything pro-lifers that do is directed towards that end. Your choice of that word – obsession – is disturbing and speaks volumes about Democrats.
speaks volumes about Democrats
So does “minutia” if he’s referring to federally funded abortion in PPACA.
Wow – I think I’m done on this thread. I’m accused of insulting the uninsured because they might not be able to pay a half million transplant bill – but it isn’t an insult to the uninsured to suggest they suck it up and have a bake sale.
It’s like when a lady mentioned to Bush that she had three jobs, and Bush “didn’t get it”. He thought it was great!
Janet, FedUp – others – if government is not a provider, I think you should skip driving on its roads, forget and reject social security, dig your own well for water, reject medicare – go live off the grid in Montana. Put your money where your mouth is.
XGOP voter, I would LOVE to “forget” social security and I just might get that chance! After years of stealing money from me (remember when they first introduced soc sec they promised us we’d have the option to opt out of it. What a lie that was, huh?) Social Security will be bankrupt by time I would have the option of “forgetting” it or using it. So I will never see a return on all that money our parasitic government has sucked out of me. NOTHING. NO RETURN.
Here is a link to a youtube video I just put out in recognition of all that the Democrats for Life have accomplished.
http://youtu.be/Eyr5TDv6bJ8
Sydney – I’m in your boat timewise – though my guess is we’ll just have a retirement age in the 70s!
I do use roads though, my girls go to school, I went to college and got some grants – so I suppose I can’t quite be off the government like some out there on this board (who I’m sure will reject SS and Medicare when they are eligible!)
RINO,
Would you rather have your SS and Meidcaid contributions back with interest or count the government do a better job taking care of you?
RINO,
Would you rather have all your SS and Meidcaid contributions back with interest or could the government do a better job taking care of you?
EGV, I hope you can spend some quality time with your wife this weekend and enjoy the miracle of life :)
I didn’t mean to get your dander up. I was trying to point out that the uninsured are not a homogenous group that fit neatly into stereotypes. Not all uninsured people agree with your viewpoints. Not all agree with Janet either. Some want government aid, others don’t. Some want to take responsibility for their costs, no matter how difficult it may be. Others want help with them.
Would you rather have all your SS and Meidcaid contributions back with interest
Heck yeah! At this point I’d take ’em without interest, or even a percentage of what I paid.
Fed up…my husband and I are perfect examples. We both lost our jobs in the last year and thus our health insurance. We continued our coverage through Cobra which is government run. Let me tell you about the idiots these people are and the inability to quickly process our payments and keep our insurance coverage current. Going to the doctors is a headache because of the government bureaucracy that we have to deal with to make sure our insurance carrier gets paid and thus pays the doctor. Government cannot efficiently run ANYTHING. I certainly do not want government running my healthcare.
I do want reform. I want insurance companies to have to COMPETE. True competition would solve a lot of issues
Hi Sydney. I can empathize with your frustration. To say that COBRA is expensive and a hassle is an understatement but I can’t think how else to phrase it.
I want insurance companies to have to COMPETE
Me too. I believe this is a better scenario than having bureaucrats–Democrat or Republican–administer benefit plans based on politics and special interest lobbies. (Think Kagan and ACOG on a large scale).
“As a nation, we have to dramatically shift away from our current health care model or we go bankrupt anyways – we are at a pace that can’t be sustained. The status quo is simply not an option. I’m happy that finally an administration had the guts to do something (other than pass a massive unfunded expansion drug bill! – thanks Bush!)”…EGV
Ex: Name one Republican in leadership that said we did not need reform. Did you not read their proposals? (Oh, that’s right, your friends in the MSM hardly breathed a word of them).
Next, name one who said the status quo was acceptable.
Finally, if what Bush did with drugs was a “massive unfunded” bill, which I agree he should not have done, then what in the world is Obamacare if not a super massive unfunded bill?
You are glad? About what..that your health care will be rationed when you need it the most? Or that our children will inherit a bankrupt, failing country because of yet another trillion plus dollar entitlement? That the finest medical system in the world will be brought to its knees in excessive regulation and soaring costs because of ideologues bent on pursuing redistributionist, utopian insanity?
Jerry – I don’t watch much of the MSM (who is that actually – CNN, ABC and FOX?) – I get most of my news on the internet. The GOP did have some proposals – not many with numbers, but did have some ideas. I think the thing that really would be interesting (and Cohn explored this in a good article) is what if the GOP really repealed this and tried to do their own budget neutral bill. Quite frankly, it can’t be done without an individual mandate (something that the Heritage foundation once pushed for) – so the GOP rails against the only things that make the bill actually work.
And yes – look up Hatch’s quote on the Medicare expansion bill – loosely, from the top of my head, it was something like “we didn’t worry about paying for things back then”. At least the CBO numbers came out positive on the recent healthcare reform.
I am glad. Looking at the current pace of things, it was clear that the country couldn’t remain competitive globally without reforming health care – it was clear that more people would be left out of plans, uninsured and paying a high percentage of their income towards medical care. Our care would increasingly become a benefit for the few. Now, THIS BILL DOES NOT FIX ALL OF THIS, but it is a positive step in the right direction.
Now, THIS BILL DOES NOT FIX ALL OF THIS, but it is a positive step in the right direction.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 18, 2010 1:22 PM
Thousands of pages of unfunded bureaucracy and bureaucrats reaching into our private heqlth decisions is better than say 20 pages of cost lowering measures like allowing interstate insurance competition and allowing us to compete globally for prescription savings? You need to start weaning yourself off the Kool-aid. Soon your blindness may be irreversible.
Ex-GOP,
You seem to be missing a good piece of what is driving the repeal of Obamacare. the whole goernment control of our lives aspect. That is where bore the Tea party and it is coming from across all parties. You seem to be disgruntled because of what George Bush did as president so you rail against the GOP. Why don’t you join the Tea Party. We are from all political parties. We are about less government invasion into our personal decisions. We see personal freedoms being endangered by an uncontrollable bureaucracy. To us the creation of 256 Obamacare agencies invading our doctor-patient confidentiality is a HUGE STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. The only other really fundamental part of our platform is that we are for a government of fiscal restraint, not a government who wants to grow and be a ‘provider’, REPEAL OBAMACARE. Apart of the Tea Party is Democratic voters who did not want Obamacare so they will be driven out of office. Some may be pro-life Democrats who want Obamacare repealed, some pare pro-choice people from both sides of the aisle who will not vote Democrat cause they want Obamacare repealed. This election in Novemeber is in large part going to be a referendum on the repeal of Obamacare and the White House is worried about just that. I just hope we can withstand these thieves spending like drunken sailors during their lame duck session where these Democrats have deemed an unlimited budget passed without voting on it. Corruption at its finest.
ExGOP,
Deeming an unlimited budget as passed and not worrying about the details is
A)a really good idea
B)a good idea
c) no big deal
d) a bad idea
e) a really bad idea
f) we are being stolen upon
“Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.”…Wall Street Journal article from the IRS ombsudsman.
Ex: surely you have to understand the additional paperwork, record keeping and time spent by these millions of businesses..and for what, exactly? It is as if they are presumed cheaters until proven otherwise. And this is good for the economy? It is just one more example of Obamacare’s ridiculous reach and abuse of government powers. I own both a small farm and a subchapter S corp–guess what–a double whammy!
This thread should remind all of us that attaching other issues to ours and trying to force anyone in our movement into marching lockstep with the entire party platform of any national party is a really, really bad idea.
Not only will it never work, it also also serves just to make NARAL smile. Many thanks again to Kristin and the DFL lobby who have gotten us every victory (Pregnant Women Support Act, executive order, etc.) that we have gotten the past year and a half. The republicans have been 100% incapable of doing anything whatsoever for our movement, because they quite simply lost so many elections. Does anyone here really delude themselves into thinking that all those elections were lost because they weren’t far enough to the right?
Now we can either move forward united in our singular task and retake the center and independent voters, or we can descend into a partisan mud slinging match. I assure you that NARAL will be eating popcorn and giggling watching some of us try and get everyone else to suddenly believe that Glenn Beck is the smartest guy in the country.
Sean, the Democrats for Life are as impotent as the executive order they used for cover when they sold out the pro-life cause and paased Obamacare without Hyde like language. Your party is deader than an unwanted baby in a NARAL womb.
Jerry @ 5:23PM, not only is the issue you mentioned a burden to business and charities, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars. I read recently that it’s projected to bring in less revenue than it will cost the IRS to enforce the provision.
truthseeker – I’m just interested to see the tea party movement over the next, let’s say 10 years. It simply makes me a bit skeptical that these folks aren’t 99% right wing republicans when they did not start during the Bush administration (massive run up of debt and size of government), and their focus is 95-99% anti-Democrat. Again, based on the values that I see that they SAY they have, they wouldn’t be a big fan of either party. Just my two cents.
The repeal movement will be a tough one – Gallup’s most recent survey on it found those who like the bill outnumbered those who didn’t in 18-29, 30-49, and 50-64. The main group strong against government health care is the over 65 age group, which oddly enough, has government health care.
The repeal movement will be a tough one
Yep. But the tools to choke off funding and investigate the corruption behind PPACA’s passage will likely be available next year. That’ll go a long way toward exposing the need for repeal to those not yet on board.
during the Bush administration (massive run up of debt and size of government),
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 18, 2010 9:09 PM
Ummm..the Bush deficits were like one fourth of the Obama deficits….and the Congress, which must approve budgets, has been controlled by Democrats since 2006. It is no coincidence those were the biggest deficit spending years of the Bush presidency.
Again, based on the values that I see that they SAY they have, they wouldn’t be a big fan of either party.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 18, 2010 9:09 PM
Smaller government and a balanced budget are both part of the Republican platform. That at least leaves the Tea party someone they can work with to reduce the size and scope of government; something that the Democrats are completely against.
Oh yes, and Bush then was forced to sign whatever came his way…
See truth – that is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. You get a President that pushes through unfunded tax cuts, an unfunded massive medicare expansion, and two unfunded wars…and you blame the Democrats in control of congress for a couple of years? I voted GOP until I realized that at least the Dems were honest about who they were – the GOP simply said one thing and then did the other. Who knows, maybe they’ll actually change – I’ll believe it when I see it.
Now that’s a good one – GOP in favor of balanced budgets? Maybe they should bring in Clinton to help them out with.
The GOP is in favor of people keeping as much money as they can, deficits be darned. I agree with Huckabee when he said it is a moral issue – cutting taxes without cutting spending and kicking the “bill due” further down the road.
Now, I’m not saying that the spending going on now can continue like it has been – but I also agree that we were brought to the brink of an economic depression, and spending is needed to fill those gaps (again, a debatable theory, but not without backing).
truth – I get you – I get it – I’m just saying that the GOP TALKS about it, but look at the numbers during the last time they actually had the Presidency – they became democrats without the taxes to equal the spending.
The main group strong against government health care is the over 65 age group, which oddly enough, has government health care.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 18, 2010 9:09 PM
True that the the old and the unborn are the most glaringly obvious classes of citizens getting devalued by the Democrats and “thrown under the Obamacare bus”. Those senior citizens in Florida will likely be miffed soon when they find their backroom deal with Obama is declared unconstitutional and they lose their Medicare Advantage like the rest of the country’s seniors.
and two unfunded wars
How many Dems voted against the War in Afghanistan in 2001 after we were attacked? One.
“I voted GOP until I realized that at least the Dems were honest about who they were – the GOP simply said one thing and then did the other.” Holy cow, ex! Think about what you are saying. It is OK for someone to rip you off and steal from the future generations and drive the country into a moral quagmire as long as they are upfront and tell you? But even if the Dems were being honest as you say they were, how is it the Obama has gone back on just about every campaign promise and position he took, very much the same as the Dems in general.
In 2006 the country was weary of the wars and the Dems ran their campaigns on the premise they would get us out of the wars. The people voted them in and guess what–here we are in 2010 and we are excalating our presence in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, the Dems in 2006 were complaining about the deficit spending. In the four years they have been in office since they took control of congress until now we have never seen a four year period when deficit spending has increased so much. Thank you, Democrats! Ex: you can say they were “honest” about this, but we know otherwise.
Fed Up: Thanks for the info. I’m not surprised–typical government stupidity.
It simply makes me a bit skeptical that these folks aren’t 99% right wing republicans when they did not start during the Bush administration (massive run up of debt and size of government), and their focus is 95-99% anti-Democrat.
Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 18, 2010 9:09 PM
RINO,
The Tea party actually did come out in protest against Bush’s signing of the TARP bailout in October of 08. So it is not just an antiDem thing, though Obama and his minons in the Democratic party have caused the Tea party to grow astronomicly because they see them growing government and taking over private business and banking. Throw Obamacare in there with it’s fiscally irresponsibily and invasion of peoples rights (mandatory government insurance purchase?) and the tea party train is picking up steam. BTW, I love everything about the Tea party but I was against Obama BIG TIME long before the Tea party train left the station because I disliked for his lack of respect for the unborn and the partially born and the born but supposed to have been dead already (like voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act). The guy is really quite a barbarian with respect to showing any kind of compassion towards humans that are still in the womb, or only partially delivered, or just delivered and supposed to be dead. He is as extreme a pro-abort idealogue as I have ever seen in politics. Even though I have not been active in the Tea party, but I am thankful for the Tea party because it is their uprising that is going to remove Obama and the Democrats from power.
Besides pro-life people and besides the tea party Obama and the Democrats are also gonna get hit hard by the people whose jobs they are bleeding.
What is an “unfunded tax cut?”
Those two words do NOT go together.
Bill/Kelli –
Let’s pretend you run a little country that has $1000 in tax revenue, and $1000 in spending – and the net result is a balanced budget. You can unbalance that (to the negative side) two ways:
1) You could increase spending and not increases taxes – an unfunded new social program for instance. You now spend $1500, take in $1000, and have $500 in deficit.
2) You could have a tax cut that isn’t counter balanced by a spending decrease – thus, it is unfunded. If you went down to $500 in tax revenue, but kept your spending at $1000, you are equally in debt.
3) AND EQUALLY RECKLESS!
So the Democrats keep taxes high and spend higher. Republicans keep spending high and tax lower – both are equally deficit causing.
We would not be near this deficit number without the Bush tax cuts and the wars. I’m not saying they were good or bad – I’m looking at it from a financial bottom line.
Shocking. I actually agree with X-GOP’s last post. The Repubs DO cut taxes but don’t really cut spending. They’re almost as bad as the dems.
The Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like. And they have never seen a budget they didn’t want to increase. Both are bad economics. On the Democratic side, Pelosi says unemployment compensation is the greatest job creator there is. The Republicans aren’t nearly that bad. And aren’t the Republicans the ones with the fortitude to say no to endless unemployment extensions unless they are funded? The only thing the Democrats understand is seeking political advantage by buying votes. In fact, this Democratic congress just deemed a budget passed for this year without any debate about where they would spend the money. They will just give us the tab later. Sydney, the Republicans are in need a Tea party infusion to get their fiscal house in order. But neither one really focuses enough on cutting spending. The biggest difference is that the Democrats spend their days increasing unfunded government spending by growing a bureaucracy. That has ZERO positive effect on our lives. The Republicans tax cuts can actually spur private sector growth and keep government from growing too fast.
The Democrats are for the growth of government to solve problem and the Republicans are for the growth of the private sector to solve problems. Which would you rather have; tax cuts without government growth or tax increases and growing a bureaucracy?
e Dems just deemed a budget passed for this year without any debate about where they would spend the money. They will just give us the tab later. The words budget and fiscal responsibility are not in the Democratic dictionary and they have no shame about it..
“I have a question for Kristin Day, Are any of the ‘Dems for Life’ also members of ‘Catholics for Choice’?”
Posted by: truthseeker at July 16, 2010 11:33 PM
That’s a very good question. Answer?
* *
“On the Democratic side, Pelosi says unemployment compensation is the greatest job creator there is.”
ts,
Thanks for the laugh.
1) It is only the most delusional of folks who would suggest that a national party that controls the white house and both houses of congress is “dead.”
2) I noticed yesterday that everyone from CNN to yahoo to Fax News reported that we won the standoff in PA over abortion funding. Congrats again to Democrats for Life who got us this victory. Stupak said himself this is proof that the executive order has real teeth. He’s right. The only ones saying we lost are some here.
3) It doesn’t help much when we desperately need senators Nelson and Casey to stop Ms. Kagan’s confirmation when we’ve been calling them junior high names and slandering them for months now – does it? But I guess maybe in the minds of some people, 36 is more than 64 – so we’ll win anyway, right?
1) It is only the most delusional of folks who would suggest that a national party that controls the white house and both houses of congress is “dead.”
Hmmm, sounds like the one who exhorted against “partisan mud slinging” at July 18, 2010 6:08 PM doesn’t care to lead by example.
Congrats again to Democrats for Life who got us this victory.
The EO, assuming that’s what you mean by “victory” does nothing to address the myriad ways the proabort and other anti-life agendas can be and likely will be woven into the implementation of PPACA administratively. But carry on with the self-congratulation if you like.
The vast majority of the people who have voted republican the past few elections – including myself – are not delusional enough to suggest that the democrats are “DEAD” as a party.
Fed Up, wins are wins – and I’ll take any win right now. We may well have been on our way to another one (defeated Kagan) had some in the pro life movement not called Casey and Nelson so many hateful names a few months ago due to your obsession with “Obamacare” – which is essentially a diversion away from the issue of pro life. The Pregnant Woman Support act was also a part of this flawed bill. The vast majority of Americans are NEVER going to embrace the extreme right way of thinking on every issue, no matter how you delude yourself into thinking they will.
I think it far better to advance our encroachment into the other party – and indeed work on the conscience of so many republicans who remain pro abortion – rather than spew vitriol at our own allies based on party affiliation. In the end, that just makes NARAL smile. They know it’s good for them and bad for us.
I noticed you sidestepped my point about 36 being more than 64. Well, maybe we could have gotten Snowe, Collins, Brown, Nelson, and Casey to join a filibuster of Kagan due to her putting politics over science with the partial birth bill and lying about it under oath. But the last people NElson and Casey are going to listen to now are the people who attacked and slandered them a few months ago. And we end up with a young, very pro abort justice.
“congratulations”
I’ll take any win right now
What’s a win to you as a party loyalist isn’t necessarily a win to me as a prolifer with no party affiliation.
The vast majority of Americans are NEVER going to embrace the extreme right way of thinking on every issue, no matter how you delude yourself into thinking they will.
Delude myself? If I were an extreme right-winger, I’d be a Republican, not an independent. But thanks anyway for judging me.
I noticed you sidestepped my point about 36 being more than 64.
I am not naive enough to believe Kagan would be filibustered or defeated.
the last people NElson and Casey are going to listen to now are the people who attacked and slandered them a few months ago.
Then that says a lot about wounded egos and lack of sincere commitment to prolife causes, doesn’t it?
obsession with “Obamacare” – which is essentially a diversion away from the issue of pro life.
I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that PPACA has no anti-life provisions and is good legislation from a prolife standpoint?
than spew vitriol at our own allies based on party affiliation. In the end, that just makes NARAL smile.
You haven’t yet shown me that Dems for Life are truly allies in the prolife cause. BTW I suspect NARAL gets bigger laughs from prolifers who provide cover for their agenda under PPACA than they do from any division PPACA creates among prolifers.
Sean: You have beaten the horse–it is dead. Despite your protestations to the contrary how can you presume to win over the likes of a Nelson and other turncoats on Kagan? If we had sugarcoated everything and bent over backwards reaching out to those you named, in a different day it may have worked, but not in these times.
Dems for Life ought to be mothballed until a revolution within the party occurs that wrests control of the leadership away, far, far away from its extreme leftist core. But until that happens, despite the best of intentions of people like yourself, the power elite in the Dem party is so entrenched in choice politics that not only will groups such as Dems for Life not be listened to, but its members will be shut out from any meaningful dialog within the party structure.
The vast majority of the people who have voted republican the past few elections – including myself – are not delusional enough to suggest that the democrats are “DEAD” as a party.
Posted by: Sean at July 20, 2010 3:54 PM
Sean, I would rather be outnumbered 36 to 64 and have 35 true conservatives in our party then join the Democratic party. I prefer not to spend my days working for a platform that includes funding the industry that makes a living commiting abortions upon the women and children of all nations. As far as I am concerned take all the RINO’s to your party too…please. They give Republicans a bad name. I hope every liberal Republican gets defeated. And I hope every Dem for Life gets defeated along with every member of their party. Cleanse our party. My best hope would be for the Republican party to get swept up by the Tea Party. Michelle Bachman for president anyone? Maybe the Dems for Life should jump ship and join the tea party too. And maybe the rest of the Dems should join the Tea Party too. The Tea parties stance on personal rights and freedoms should appeal to the pro-choice crowd. Or maybe a group of the Dems can beak off and join the Tea party and call themselves conservatives for abortion. Good luck getting elected though…lol
Have mecry on us and protect us Jesus and bring your Father’s Holy will to our nation.
I was just looking up Michelle Bachman’s record and I found that she used to be a member of Democrats for Life but left the Democratic party because they did not respect the Constitution. Interesting….
All those pro-lifers should be forced to pay for the kids their so against aborting. Its a crime for it to be illegal. Any progressive country that actually cares about their citizens life quality and and environment would ensure safe legal access to abortion.