WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to create a question about its passage."
"I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider. That would mean that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate with her parents for the coverage. Or a woman in an abusive relationship would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that extra insurance, just in case.
It's a backdoor attempt by Stupak and his colleagues to get abortion coverage excluded from private insurance, as well as public--which has been in place since 1976 with the Hyde Amendment, a rider that has been attached to appropriations bills for the past 33 years. The proposed House bill already goes much further in restricting access to abortion services than pro-choice advocates like, and in many ways marks a significant step back for choice. One of the primary issues is that it would codify the Hyde Amendment, making it permanent law.
But the Stupak amendment is much worse. He says he as some 40 Members with him to vote no on letting the bill onto the floor without banning abortion. It's not clear that he actually does have 40. We know of these 29 who are with him. Incidentally, 28 of them are men. Shocking, I know.
* Jason Altmire * John Barrow * Dan Boren * Bobby Bright * Chris Carney * Travis Childers * Jerry Costello * Kathy Dahlkemper * Artur Davis * Lincoln Davis * Steve Driehaus * Parker Griffith * Tim Holden * Dale Kildee * Frank Kratovil * Dan Lipinski * Jim Marshall * Jim Matheson * Mike McIntyre * Charlie Melancon * Michael McMahon * Alan Mollohan * Jim Oberstar * Collin Peterson * Nick Rahall * Mike Ross * Heath Shuler * John Tanner * Gene Taylor
As Chris says, this makes just 30 members along with Stupak, not enough to stop the bill from coming to the floor unless he can find nine more. He says he has 40 some, so it's possible. So if you happen to recognize any of those above names as being your Representative, give them a call and let them know that you don't appreciate they're working with Republicans to attempt to derail this reform.
> WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > create a question about its passage."
> "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer funding for abortions. Some pro-choicers like myself object to it and some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
Liberals should compromise this position.
>That would mean > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > with her parents for the coverage.
What, 13? 14? So what?
>Or a woman in an abusive relationship > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > extra insurance, just in case.
Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be a victim. Not good enough. That's like saying I have to buy her groceries too because her abusive partner doesn't allow her access to their bank account when she wants something from a grocery store.
> It's a backdoor attempt by Stupak and his colleagues to get abortion > coverage excluded from private insurance, as well as public--which has > been in place since 1976 with the Hyde Amendment, a rider that has been > attached to appropriations bills for the past 33 years. The proposed > House bill already goes much further in restricting access to abortion > services than pro-choice advocates like, and in many ways marks a > significant step back for choice. One of the primary issues is that it > would codify the Hyde Amendment, making it permanent law.
Well then maybe we shouldn't complicate things buy socializing health care... Problem solved.
> > WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > > create a question about its passage."
> > "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> > To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
> So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > funding for abortions.
of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the environment? btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck you drive regularly?
> Some pro-choicers like myself
control freaks who call themselves pro-choice but are anti-everything they don't personally approve of ... people like you.
> some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
who cares about your morality?
> Liberals should compromise this position.
control freak.
> >That would mean > > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > > with her parents for the coverage.
> What, 13? 14? So what?
control freak.
> >Or a woman in an abusive relationship > > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > > extra insurance, just in case.
> Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be > a victim.
> > > WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > > > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > > > create a question about its passage."
> > > "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > > > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > > > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > > > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > > > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> > > To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > > > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > > > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > > > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > > > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > > > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
> > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > funding for abortions.
> of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' health care. Providers have every right to object to where their money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
> are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, etc.
> what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > environment?
Should be covered. This isn't through a choice of the person who gets sick. He's gotta breathe.
>btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > you drive regularly?
Ultra low sulpher diesel (ULSD), 15 parts per million. Whether that's better than LSD (500 ppm) I don't know.
> > Some pro-choicers like myself
> control freaks who call themselves pro-choice but are anti-everything > they don't personally approve of ... people like you.
it's not control freakish to ask the government to force providers to pay for non providers with threat of law and/or force??
> > some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
> who cares about your morality?
I do. And given the opportunity to voice where my money is going to be spent, I will voice it.
> > Liberals should compromise this position.
> control freak.
it's not control freakish to ask the government to force providers to pay for non providers with threat of law and/or force??
> > >That would mean > > > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > > > with her parents for the coverage.
> > What, 13? 14? So what?
> control freak.
That doesn't even warrant a response.
> > >Or a woman in an abusive relationship > > > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > > > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > > > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > > > extra insurance, just in case.
> > Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be > > a victim.
> huge control freak
it's not control freakish to ask the government to force providers to pay for non providers with threat of law and/or force??
> > > WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > > > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > > > create a question about its passage."
> > > "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > > > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > > > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > > > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > > > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> > > To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > > > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > > > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > > > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > > > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > > > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
> > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > funding for abortions.
> of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > environment? btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > you drive regularly?
> > Some pro-choicers like myself
> control freaks who call themselves pro-choice but are anti-everything > they don't personally approve of ... people like you.
> > some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
> who cares about your morality?
> > Liberals should compromise this position.
> control freak.
> > >That would mean > > > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > > > with her parents for the coverage.
> > What, 13? 14? So what?
> control freak.
> > >Or a woman in an abusive relationship > > > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > > > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > > > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > > > extra insurance, just in case.
> > Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be > > a victim.
> huge control freak- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I am totally opposed to artificial methods of procreation. There are already millions of children now who need homes, and no one ever died from not breeding. Yet, the pronatalists insist on that being covered. I am opposed to indigent people breeding children, because "if you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" and if abortions aren't covered, the costs to the health care system, as well as social services, will be burdened even more, and we're already out of funds to take care of existing people. It only makes sense to provide abortions to reduce the costs involved in procreation, and since we can't house, feed, and employ everyone here already, it's insanity to promote breeding and cut funding to avoid breeding. It's economic Ceaucescuism!
elizabeth wrote: > On Nov 4, 4:08 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article > > <84dc979c-0e64-4cdb-bd6f-704fbe915...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > > > > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > > > > create a question about its passage."
> > > > "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > > > > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > > > > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > > > > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > > > > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> > > > To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > > > > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > > > > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > > > > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > > > > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > > > > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
> > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > funding for abortions.
> > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> > what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > > environment? btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > > you drive regularly?
> > > Some pro-choicers like myself
> > control freaks who call themselves pro-choice but are anti-everything > > they don't personally approve of ... people like you.
> > > some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
> > who cares about your morality?
> > > Liberals should compromise this position.
> > control freak.
> > > >That would mean > > > > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > > > > with her parents for the coverage.
> > > What, 13? 14? So what?
> > control freak.
> > > >Or a woman in an abusive relationship > > > > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > > > > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > > > > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > > > > extra insurance, just in case.
> > > Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be > > > a victim.
> > huge control freak- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I am totally opposed to artificial methods of procreation. >There are > already millions of children now who need homes, and no one ever died > from not breeding. Yet, the pronatalists insist on that being > covered.
I agree that it should not be covered under a government plan.
>I am opposed to indigent people breeding children, because > "if you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" and if abortions aren't > covered, the costs to the health care system, as well as social > services, will be burdened even more, and we're already out of funds > to take care of existing people.
I'm opposed to forcing people to feed others through governmental force. Charity should be voluntary.
>It only makes sense to provide > abortions to reduce the costs involved in procreation, and since we > can't house, feed, and employ everyone here already, it's insanity to > promote breeding and cut funding to avoid breeding. It's economic > Ceaucescuism!
That's only slightly rational if you believe government must feed, clothe, house non providers and their offspring by taking from those who produce.
> james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > In article > > <84dc979c-0e64-4cdb-bd6f-704fbe915...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > > > > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > > > > create a question about its passage."
> > > > "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > > > > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > > > > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > > > > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > > > > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> > > > To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > > > > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > > > > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > > > > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > > > > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > > > > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
> > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > funding for abortions.
> > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass > health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' > health care. Providers have every right to object to where their > money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
your ignorant and selfish opinions are disgusting.
> > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up > years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, > etc.
and sickos like you might well argue that anyone who needs care should be excluded.
> > what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > > environment?
> Should be covered. This isn't through a choice of the person who gets > sick. He's gotta breathe.
but you'd exclude them too.
> > btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > > you drive regularly?
> Ultra low sulpher diesel (ULSD), 15 parts per million. Whether that's > better than LSD (500 ppm) I don't know.
so you are your truck are harming people and polluting the environment.
> > > Some pro-choicers like myself
> > control freaks who call themselves pro-choice but are anti-everything > > they don't personally approve of ... people like you.
> it's not control freakish to ask the government to force providers to > pay for non providers with threat of law and/or force??
> > > some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
> > who cares about your morality?
> I do.
and you want to imppose it on everyone else which validates my label of control freak for you.
> > > Liberals should compromise this position.
> > control freak.
> it's not control freakish
of course it is. all you do is whine liberal all the time
> > > >That would mean > > > > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > > > > with her parents for the coverage.
> > > What, 13? 14? So what?
> > control freak.
> That doesn't even warrant a response.
if you want to withdraw your comments, do so with more grace.
> > > >Or a woman in an abusive relationship > > > > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > > > > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > > > > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > > > > extra insurance, just in case.
> > > Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be > > > a victim.
> In article > <cc0a0f49-ce84-4f0f-8732-7ed3bd32d...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > > In article > > > <84dc979c-0e64-4cdb-bd6f-704fbe915...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > > > > AlterNet
> > > > > WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > > > > > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > > > > > create a question about its passage."
> > > > > "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > > > > > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > > > > > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > > > > > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > > > > > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> > > > > To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > > > > > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > > > > > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > > > > > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > > > > > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > > > > > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
> > > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > > funding for abortions.
> > > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> > It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass > > health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' > > health care. Providers have every right to object to where their > > money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
> your ignorant and selfish opinions are disgusting.
This is not an argument, this is BS thrown because you have no defense for stealing from Americans. Congress should begin a convention to add to their enumerated powers. They should follow the law.
> > > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> > Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up > > years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, > > etc.
> and sickos like you might well argue that anyone who needs care should > be excluded.
No, dim wit, they should pay for it and not demand others to.
> > > what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > > > environment?
> > Should be covered. This isn't through a choice of the person who gets > > sick. He's gotta breathe.
> but you'd exclude them too.
They can buy health insurance like I do, or pay the hospital for services rendered marxist jim.
> > > btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > > > you drive regularly?
> > Ultra low sulpher diesel (ULSD), 15 parts per million. Whether that's > > better than LSD (500 ppm) I don't know.
> so you are your truck are harming people and polluting the environment.
I doubt it, no more than you and your car, or your furnace, or your place of employment. My idle percentage is 0.36 %. I'm doing what I can, what are you doing besides trying to illegally steal money?
> > > control freaks who call themselves pro-choice but are anti-everything > > > they don't personally approve of ... people like you.
> > it's not control freakish to ask the government to force providers to > > pay for non providers with threat of law and/or force??
> > > > some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
> > > who cares about your morality?
> > I do.
> and you want to imppose it on everyone else which validates my label of > control freak for you.
No idiot. I want to leave people alone and I want them to leave my property alone, marxist.
> > > > Liberals should compromise this position.
> > > control freak.
> > it's not control freakish
> of course it is.
I am the furthest from that. Look at what your policies cause others to surrender.
>all you do is whine liberal all the time
Because it's true. Congress has no right to steal my money.
> > > > >That would mean > > > > > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > > > > > with her parents for the coverage.
> > > > What, 13? 14? So what?
> > > control freak.
> > That doesn't even warrant a response.
Glad you agree.
> if you want to withdraw your comments, do so with more grace.
> > > > >Or a woman in an abusive relationship > > > > > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > > > > > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > > > > > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > > > > > extra insurance, just in case.
> > > > Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be > > > > a victim.
> In article > <cc0a0f49-ce84-4f0f-8732-7ed3bd32d...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > > In article > > > <84dc979c-0e64-4cdb-bd6f-704fbe915...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > > > > AlterNet
> > > > > WaPo reports today that a number of anti-choice holdouts among Democrats > > > > > are "threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to > > > > > create a question about its passage."
> > > > > "I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill > > > > > to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for > > > > > abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a > > > > > statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to > > > > > oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.
> > > > > To be clear, Stupak and his colleagues are joining with Republicans in > > > > > trying to prevent the bill from coming to the floor at all if their > > > > > extreme anti-choice amendment is not allowed. Stupak wants to prohibit > > > > > abortion coverage completely in the exchange, meaning that if a woman > > > > > wanted reproductive health coverage that included abortion servcies, > > > > > she'd have to purchase an additional insurance rider.
> > > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > > funding for abortions.
> > > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> > It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass > > health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' > > health care. Providers have every right to object to where their > > money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
> your ignorant and selfish opinions are disgusting.
This is not an argument, this is BS thrown because you have no defense for stealing from Americans. Congress should begin a convention to add to their enumerated powers. They should follow the law.
> > > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> > Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up > > years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, > > etc.
> and sickos like you might well argue that anyone who needs care should > be excluded.
No, dim wit, they should pay for it and not demand others to.
> > > what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > > > environment?
> > Should be covered. This isn't through a choice of the person who gets > > sick. He's gotta breathe.
> but you'd exclude them too.
They can buy health insurance like I do, or pay the hospital for services rendered marxist jim.
> > > btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > > > you drive regularly?
> > Ultra low sulpher diesel (ULSD), 15 parts per million. Whether that's > > better than LSD (500 ppm) I don't know.
> so you are your truck are harming people and polluting the environment.
I doubt it, no more than you and your car, or your furnace, or your place of employment. My idle percentage is 0.36 %. I'm doing what I can, what are you doing besides trying to illegally steal money?
> > > control freaks who call themselves pro-choice but are anti-everything > > > they don't personally approve of ... people like you.
> > it's not control freakish to ask the government to force providers to > > pay for non providers with threat of law and/or force??
> > > > some, like myself are morally opposed to abortions.
> > > who cares about your morality?
> > I do.
> and you want to imppose it on everyone else which validates my label of > control freak for you.
No idiot. I want to leave people alone and I want them to leave my property alone, marxist.
> > > > Liberals should compromise this position.
> > > control freak.
> > it's not control freakish
> of course it is.
I am the furthest from that. Look at what your policies cause others to surrender.
>all you do is whine liberal all the time
Because it's true. Congress has no right to steal my money.
> > > > >That would mean > > > > > that a young woman covered by her parent's plan would have to negotiate > > > > > with her parents for the coverage.
> > > > What, 13? 14? So what?
> > > control freak.
> > That doesn't even warrant a response.
Glad you agree.
> if you want to withdraw your comments, do so with more grace.
> > > > >Or a woman in an abusive relationship > > > > > would have to negotiate that with her partner. Women would have to plan > > > > > in advance, think ahead to whether any circumstance in their future life > > > > > might lead them to have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy and buy that > > > > > extra insurance, just in case.
> > > > Here we go. So everyone must now pay for it because there "might" be > > > > a victim.
> james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > > > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > > > funding for abortions.
> > > > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> > > It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass > > > health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' > > > health care. Providers have every right to object to where their > > > money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
> > your ignorant and selfish opinions are disgusting.
> This is not an argument, t
strawman. you apparently don't like the ugly picture of yourself that your words portray.
> > > > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> > > Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up > > > years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, > > > etc.
> > and sickos like you might well argue that anyone who needs care should > > be excluded.
> No, dim wit, they should pay for it and not demand others to.
and now we come down to it ... you admit that you want to withhold care from those who need it.
apparently you're ashamed of that too, given your name-calling
> > > > what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > > > > environment?
> > > Should be covered. This isn't through a choice of the person who gets > > > sick. He's gotta breathe.
> > but you'd exclude them too.
> They can buy health insurance like I do, or pay the hospital for > services rendered marxist jim.
> > > > btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > > > > you drive regularly?
> > > Ultra low sulpher diesel (ULSD), 15 parts per million. Whether that's > > > better than LSD (500 ppm) I don't know.
> > so you are your truck are harming people and polluting the environment.
> I doubt it, no more than you and your car, or your furnace, or your > place of employment. My idle percentage is 0.36 %. I'm doing what I > can, what are you doing besides trying to illegally steal money?
> In article > <a5d94562-96ed-4058-80ce-13d2bf891...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > > > > funding for abortions.
> > > > > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> > > > It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass > > > > health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' > > > > health care. Providers have every right to object to where their > > > > money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
> > > your ignorant and selfish opinions are disgusting.
> > This is not an argument, t
> strawman. you apparently don't like the ugly picture of yourself that > your words portray.
It's still not an argument James. It's a reaction that refutes nothing.
> > > > > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> > > > Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up > > > > years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, > > > > etc.
> > > and sickos like you might well argue that anyone who needs care should > > > be excluded.
> > No, dim wit, they should pay for it and not demand others to.
> and now we come down to it ... you admit that you want to withhold care > from those who need it.
No, I admit that it's not my job to pay for other people's coverage. Neither is it the government's job. Whether I choose to contribute to charity is a decision I make freely, without threat of violence or unlawful penalties.
> apparently you're ashamed of that too, given your name-calling
Nope. My conscience is clear. Your attempt to shame me into agreeing with an unconstitutional power is not a logical argument.
> > > > > what if the illness came as the result of scumbags polluting the > > > > > environment?
> > > > Should be covered. This isn't through a choice of the person who gets > > > > sick. He's gotta breathe.
> > > but you'd exclude them too.
> > They can buy health insurance like I do, or pay the hospital for > > services rendered marxist jim.
> > > > > btw, what is the nature of the exhaust from the huge truck > > > > > you drive regularly?
> > > > Ultra low sulpher diesel (ULSD), 15 parts per million. Whether that's > > > > better than LSD (500 ppm) I don't know.
> > > so you are your truck are harming people and polluting the environment.
> > I doubt it, no more than you and your car, or your furnace, or your > > place of employment. My idle percentage is 0.36 %. I'm doing what I > > can, what are you doing besides trying to illegally steal money?
> why do you say such silly things?
Because it's true. You contribute to the pollution yourself every time you go to the fridge and grab a snack, or cook dinner or change your clothes. All brought to you by truck that spews diesel exhaust. And if you buy a lot of perishables, the TCU trailers have diesel motors spewing black smoke so to keep your dairy, frozen and produce products fresh.
So, I stand by my claim: "I doubt it, no more than you...".
> james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > In article > > <a5d94562-96ed-4058-80ce-13d2bf891...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > > > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > > > > > funding for abortions.
> > > > > > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> > > > > It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass > > > > > health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' > > > > > health care. Providers have every right to object to where their > > > > > money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
> > > > your ignorant and selfish opinions are disgusting.
> > > This is not an argument, t
> > strawman. you apparently don't like the ugly picture of yourself that > > your words portray.
> It's still not an argument James.
repeating a deflated strawman is rather ignorant
> > > > > > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> > > > > Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up > > > > > years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, > > > > > etc.
> > > > and sickos like you might well argue that anyone who needs care should > > > > be excluded.
> > > No, dim wit, they should pay for it and not demand others to.
> > and now we come down to it ... you admit that you want to withhold care > > from those who need it. > No
whine, whine, whine.
your words speak for themselves.
> > apparently you're ashamed of that too, given your name-calling
> In article > <60940bab-a2be-4782-9090-fb9d4c616...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote: > > > In article > > > <a5d94562-96ed-4058-80ce-13d2bf891...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > > > william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > > > > > > So what's the problem? It's hardly "extreme" to oppose tax payer > > > > > > > > funding for abortions.
> > > > > > > of course it is extreme. and prejudicial.
> > > > > > It's not because of the very nature of which they are trying to pass > > > > > > health care: forcing providers through law to pay for non providers' > > > > > > health care. Providers have every right to object to where their > > > > > > money goes, that is not in any way extreme.
> > > > > your ignorant and selfish opinions are disgusting.
> > > > This is not an argument, t
> > > strawman. you apparently don't like the ugly picture of yourself that > > > your words portray.
> > It's still not an argument James.
> repeating a deflated strawman is rather ignorant
> > > > > > > are people will illnesses linked to smoking excluded?
> > > > > > Some could reasonably argue, yes. I'm sure this issue will come up > > > > > > years down the road if health care passes, along with diet, activity, > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > and sickos like you might well argue that anyone who needs care should > > > > > be excluded.
> > > > No, dim wit, they should pay for it and not demand others to.
> > > and now we come down to it ... you admit that you want to withhold care > > > from those who need it.
> > No
> whine, whine, whine.
> your words speak for themselves.
Uh huh. Your words do not refute my claim.
> > > apparently you're ashamed of that too, given your name-calling
|
