Open Letter to MMJ (Health Care Reform)

[NoVa_NoLa]

But the guy holding up the bible saying he would raise hell if his tax dollars ever paid for an abortion was totally unhinged. And she calmly said that there is currently a federal law prohibiting that and there is nothing in any of the bills to change that and continued to scream "I don't believe you! I don't believe you!"

So. Tax dollars to kill a hundred thousand innocent civilians half a world away - no problem. But by all means every tax-paying bible-thumping nut job should stand between a woman and her doctor. That's not undue interference at all. That's patriotism! That's an informed citizenry taking a stand!

SO your Uncle Sam should be in the embryo and fetus destruction business?
There is language in the legislation providing federal funds for abortions--completely inappropriate.  Why would anyone buy any of the politicians' answers at face value when they've basically confessed that they do not have time to read these bills to begin with?  It is as if they're all saying "We know what is best for you!  Shut up and get out of our way."  Well, sorry there is no f'ing way that is going to happen with this issue and don't even get me started on how criminal this "cap and trade" bullshit is--too bad citizens didn't get as involved in that one as they are with this.

This is where I think there is a major problem.  People aren't well informed.  The bill is online.  Go and read it.  Yeah, it's long -- get over it.  At least know what you're talking about and while you're there check out the Hyde Amendment.   You don't have to "buy" anything.  Through the magical power of the internet you can figure out on your own.

Too many people watch the talking heads on TV and really think that they are in the game for some reason other than personal gain.  It's painful to see citizens played so easily (left and right) and hearing them say that they take their vote seriously, but not seriously enough to be well-informed.  

If people are this uninformed and so easily swayed (death panels? come on), I'm glad that they didn't get involved in cap n trade.  Involvement ought to involve more than the ability to shout slogans.

I love to hear the other side of the story -- other people's take on the things, but what's going on with the health care "reform" is wasteful in the full sense of the word.  "I don't want government running my Medicare."  "My grandkids are going to pay for this." "This is socialism."  "I don't want to become a communist!"

Seriously...it's sad that what will get the headlines are the whacko's and the screamers.  Even more sad are the number of younger voters -- the ones I'd stereotyped into being more capable of using and finding information -- that really don't seem to have a clue.  Even though it's right there for them.

I am glad that MMJ posted something on their site.  I don't think I know a single working musician who does not support the idea of health reform.  What?  No free speech for musicians?  

[camille]

But the guy holding up the bible saying he would raise hell if his tax dollars ever paid for an abortion was totally unhinged. And she calmly said that there is currently a federal law prohibiting that and there is nothing in any of the bills to change that and continued to scream "I don't believe you! I don't believe you!"

So. Tax dollars to kill a hundred thousand innocent civilians half a world away - no problem. But by all means every tax-paying bible-thumping nut job should stand between a woman and her doctor. That's not undue interference at all. That's patriotism! That's an informed citizenry taking a stand!

SO your Uncle Sam should be in the embryo and fetus destruction business?
There is language in the legislation providing federal funds for abortions--completely inappropriate.  Why would anyone buy any of the politicians' answers at face value when they've basically confessed that they do not have time to read these bills to begin with?  It is as if they're all saying "We know what is best for you!  Shut up and get out of our way."  Well, sorry there is no f'ing way that is going to happen with this issue and don't even get me started on how criminal this "cap and trade" bullshit is--too bad citizens didn't get as involved in that one as they are with this.

Have you read the bills?

a little background:

The Hyde Amendment:

Every year since 1976, Congress has approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal 'Title X' funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the woman's life. Although roughly 90 percent of all private insurance plans cover abortion services, there are additional federal mandates barring funds for abortion for women in the military, women using American Indian health services and women covered by government-run insurance plans.

That's the law.

*

Last week:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) stood on the floor of the U.S. House and argued, as he has previously, that taxpayer dollars should not be distributed to Planned Parenthood of America, a family planning organization that provides abortion services, among many other things. Though federal law already prohibits federal money from directly funding abortions, Pence argued that all of Planned Parenthood's funding should be stripped no matter what services the money is earmarked for, because funding any part of Planned Parenthood allows the organization to free up other resources to pay for abortions...

The 1,018-page health reform bill currently before the House makes no mention of abortion or any other specific medical services. This has prompted some anti-abortion advocates to claim that the bill contains a hidden "abortion mandate."
...

U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment that specifically states that abortion coverage cannot be named by any subsequent health benefits advisory board or the Department of Health and Human Services as an essential service. The language of this amendment effectively destroys any possibility of health care reform containing a "hidden abortion mandate."

The Capps amendment, which goes on to make clear that covering abortion services will never be required or prohibited for any health care plan, maintains the status quo prescribed by the Hyde Amendment. Only certain abortions — in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity, for instance — could be obtained using taxpayer funds.

Under the Capps amendment:

* Abortion coverage would not be part of the required minimum benefits package. In other words, insurers would not be required to offer, or be prohibited from offering, abortion services in order to participate in the exchange.

* The public plan could include abortion coverage, but the cost of the additional coverage could not be paid through public subsidies (tax dollars), only through the premiums paid by the insured. And with private plans in the exchange, again, federal subsidies could not be used for abortion coverage.

* Public funding would only be permitted for abortions allowed under the Hyde Amendment — in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger.

* At least one plan in every region must offer full abortion coverage; and one must not.

* Any insurance plan participating in the exchange cannot discriminate against hospitals or other health care facilities (such as Catholic hospitals) that are unwilling to provide abortions.

* The plan will not pre-empt any state laws regarding abortion, such as parental notification laws.

"The goal should be to maintain the current policies," Korzen said. "That Capps amendment accomplishes just that. It specifically prohibits taxpayers' funding of abortions.



additionally, interestingly:

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who supports abortion rights, partnered to sponsor a bill titled "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act," which creates a national adoption campaign, tax incentives for adoption and increased availability of ultrasound equipment.

Although the bill has been able to attract a wide variety of supporters from both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements, socially conservative activists reject it in part because it provides funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education.

Conservative activists consider emergency contraception, birth control pills and some other contraceptives as equivalent to abortion, leaving little room for compromise. Any health care reform bill that pays for coverage of virtually any women's reproductive health services, regardless of their legality and widespread acceptance, will be morally unacceptable to them.

***








So there you go. Maybe this was just a miscommunication. When I hear "Pro-Life" in these modern times, I understand it to be against elective abortions. Neither the (dominant) House bill nor the (only) Senate bill would allow the use of tax dollars for elective abortions.

If you take issue with a rape and incest victims having access to / receiving abortions, then... well, I guess first of all where was your righteous indignation when Medicaid allowed for them for the last 30 years under 2 Bushes and a Reagan? And this new super scary "Obamacare" does not change anything.

But more to the point, I would love to hear a rational justification for that position.

Same goes for if you consider birth control to be some sort of "abortion service." If so, just get on with it already and declare all women chattel.

Other than that, rest easy. Uncle Sam will not be in the embryo destruction business.

*

Good thing all these plans cover Viagra, though. Whew! That would've been rough.

[vespachick]

[size=24]CAMILLE!!! [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif][/size] [/b]

[aMillionDreams]

Bravo!  Well done, Camille.

Don't expect a response from the Fanatic though.  When confronted with rational debate he usually disappears for a while.

[Paulie_Walnuts]

It makes me sad that there are still fans of My Morning Jacket's music that still don't get what it's all about.  I am not trying to be mean here, but it is pathetic that some of you think this is just about music.  Have any of you actually listened to the words in these songs?  Jim's lyrics are very literal in Evil Urges in terms of supporting this upcoming revolution.  Jim isn't performing this godly music for fun, but to change this fucked-up world.  I would love to make music, but my best way to get the message out is through writing.  Jim just happens to be amazing at making great music, so he uses it as a vehicle to drive the message that people like me support and are getting out every day.

Do I seriously have to educate some people on what is happening in  the world?  Go online or go ask somebody with a brain about what is about to go down in the United States in the near future.  
1.  Our money has NO value.  ZERO!!!  Get off your hipster/poser ass and go educate yourself about the Federal Reserve and find out how they robbed us blind and continue to enslave us.
2.  The corporations run this world.  If you don't understand how serious this is, then you are fully endoctrinated into the system.
3.  Because our currency is worth nothing, we need to push for a health care system that covers everyone.  The money is fake anyway, so it doesn't even matter how much "it costs."  
4.  Once people become more aware to the truth that our government has sold us out to the corporations, we will overthrow everyone in perceived power and have full anarchy or a resource-based economy in which we will thrive beyond the current imagination that has been implanted in us by the school systems.
5.  We are about to have a spiritual awakening...an expansion of consciousness on a world-wide scale.  Jim is singing about this if you've care to pay attention.


We are in this together, and it is My Morning Jacket's purpose to put out good energy into the world and spread the message to people who still think concepts like love, joy, sharing, peace, enlightenment, and knowledge are still important.  I think these things could change the world.  I think we can change the world, and that is what bands like MMJ, Arcade Fire, Bright Eyes, and most of the bands we all listen to believe in.  That is what the Beatles were saying, and the Clash, and U2.  That is the whole purpose of starting a band.  To get a message out there so we can change things.  We are about to go through a time that makes the 60s look like child's play.

If you don't want these bands to have messages and you want to live the rest of your life in corporate America, then go listen to the Jonas brothers or people from American Idol and get the fuck off of this board.  Because you are slowing down the revolution.

Go get a clue, and WAKE UP.  Everything you know is wrong and is a lie.

"Jim's lyrics are very literal in Evil Urges in terms of supporting this upcoming revolution.  Jim isn't performing this godly music for fun, but to change this fucked-up world."

You make him sound like the new Messiah!! Are you sure it's Jim James and not Jim Jones? If I start reading his posts about saving the animals in Woodstcok, the welfare system, and the coming revolution....will I end up as part of some bizarre mass suicide?

Seriously, I do think Nikki has a point with her original post. It strikes me that some bands, as soon as they start getting financial stability, begin side projects, worthy collaborations, benefit CD's of recordings that wouldn't normally see the light of day, start to lose the essence of what they were.

I'm not saying it about MMJ, or more particularly Jim James, at the moment....but heaven forbid we end up with another Bono!!

Maybe the new Messiah needs saving from himself, and Nikki's post might just help!

[aMillionDreams]

These are causes he believes in.  He would be remiss not to talk about them and raise money for them.  Luckily, he lives in a country where freedom of speech is ostensibly protected.  You don't have to agree with it, but if anyone who calls themselves American, let alone a Jim James fan, ought to support his right to speak his mind.

Since when do we expect our musicians to be mindless minstrels, only seeing the light of day to entertain us?

I'm sorry if you think Jim's politics interfere with his music, but that's really on you.  Jim shouldn't be expected to not donate money to charity or to not speak his mind in interviews or on his website.  He is a human being with passions outside of the music world, if you don't like it, find someone willing to be a mindless minstrel for you. There's plenty of them on the Billboard Top 40.

[Jon T.]

Word.  8-)

[Penny Lane]

But the guy holding up the bible saying he would raise hell if his tax dollars ever paid for an abortion was totally unhinged. And she calmly said that there is currently a federal law prohibiting that and there is nothing in any of the bills to change that and continued to scream "I don't believe you! I don't believe you!"

So. Tax dollars to kill a hundred thousand innocent civilians half a world away - no problem. But by all means every tax-paying bible-thumping nut job should stand between a woman and her doctor. That's not undue interference at all. That's patriotism! That's an informed citizenry taking a stand!

SO your Uncle Sam should be in the embryo and fetus destruction business?
There is language in the legislation providing federal funds for abortions--completely inappropriate.  Why would anyone buy any of the politicians' answers at face value when they've basically confessed that they do not have time to read these bills to begin with?  It is as if they're all saying "We know what is best for you!  Shut up and get out of our way."  Well, sorry there is no f'ing way that is going to happen with this issue and don't even get me started on how criminal this "cap and trade" bullshit is--too bad citizens didn't get as involved in that one as they are with this.

Have you read the bills?

a little background:

The Hyde Amendment:

Every year since 1976, Congress has approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal 'Title X' funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the woman's life. Although roughly 90 percent of all private insurance plans cover abortion services, there are additional federal mandates barring funds for abortion for women in the military, women using American Indian health services and women covered by government-run insurance plans.

That's the law.

*

Last week:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) stood on the floor of the U.S. House and argued, as he has previously, that taxpayer dollars should not be distributed to Planned Parenthood of America, a family planning organization that provides abortion services, among many other things. Though federal law already prohibits federal money from directly funding abortions, Pence argued that all of Planned Parenthood's funding should be stripped no matter what services the money is earmarked for, because funding any part of Planned Parenthood allows the organization to free up other resources to pay for abortions...

The 1,018-page health reform bill currently before the House makes no mention of abortion or any other specific medical services. This has prompted some anti-abortion advocates to claim that the bill contains a hidden "abortion mandate."
...

U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment that specifically states that abortion coverage cannot be named by any subsequent health benefits advisory board or the Department of Health and Human Services as an essential service. The language of this amendment effectively destroys any possibility of health care reform containing a "hidden abortion mandate."

The Capps amendment, which goes on to make clear that covering abortion services will never be required or prohibited for any health care plan, maintains the status quo prescribed by the Hyde Amendment. Only certain abortions — in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity, for instance — could be obtained using taxpayer funds.

Under the Capps amendment:

* Abortion coverage would not be part of the required minimum benefits package. In other words, insurers would not be required to offer, or be prohibited from offering, abortion services in order to participate in the exchange.

* The public plan could include abortion coverage, but the cost of the additional coverage could not be paid through public subsidies (tax dollars), only through the premiums paid by the insured. And with private plans in the exchange, again, federal subsidies could not be used for abortion coverage.

* Public funding would only be permitted for abortions allowed under the Hyde Amendment — in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger.

* At least one plan in every region must offer full abortion coverage; and one must not.

* Any insurance plan participating in the exchange cannot discriminate against hospitals or other health care facilities (such as Catholic hospitals) that are unwilling to provide abortions.

* The plan will not pre-empt any state laws regarding abortion, such as parental notification laws.

"The goal should be to maintain the current policies," Korzen said. "That Capps amendment accomplishes just that. It specifically prohibits taxpayers' funding of abortions.



additionally, interestingly:

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who supports abortion rights, partnered to sponsor a bill titled "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act," which creates a national adoption campaign, tax incentives for adoption and increased availability of ultrasound equipment.

Although the bill has been able to attract a wide variety of supporters from both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements, socially conservative activists reject it in part because it provides funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education.

Conservative activists consider emergency contraception, birth control pills and some other contraceptives as equivalent to abortion, leaving little room for compromise. Any health care reform bill that pays for coverage of virtually any women's reproductive health services, regardless of their legality and widespread acceptance, will be morally unacceptable to them.

***








So there you go. Maybe this was just a miscommunication. When I hear "Pro-Life" in these modern times, I understand it to be against elective abortions. Neither the (dominant) House bill nor the (only) Senate bill would allow the use of tax dollars for elective abortions.

If you take issue with a rape and incest victims having access to / receiving abortions, then... well, I guess first of all where was your righteous indignation when Medicaid allowed for them for the last 30 years under 2 Bushes and a Reagan? And this new super scary "Obamacare" does not change anything.

But more to the point, I would love to hear a rational justification for that position.

Same goes for if you consider birth control to be some sort of "abortion service." If so, just get on with it already and declare all women chattel.

Other than that, rest easy. Uncle Sam will not be in the embryo destruction business.

*

Good thing all these plans cover Viagra, though. Whew! That would've been rough.

:) :) :)

in spite of all the 'crazies' at these town hall protests---i also think the democrats only have themselves to blame if this gets debacled...yet again..they pretty much control all 3 branches of govt, even though the bill's online, they haven't done a good job at easing people's fears, all people are thinking is nationalization---which would be a mess for a country this size....they should have learned from hillary's attempts in 93', yet once again pelosi and her cronies are doing a hack job. democrats, champions of free speech, can't really hold these town hall meetings and not hear people's anger, it's a devisive issue...an uninformed electorate is nothing new...i'm a democrat at heart but christ, can they just do something right for once? pelosi should step down, also...

[BH]

I'd say the fact that we are discussing this, proves that the band's decision to make a post about Health Care was worth while!

[Ruckus]

Thanks Camille and Nova :)  You two responded in articulate and intelligent ways that my boiling blood would not have allowed.  

[AMightyCaporal]

Agreed and agreed nice posts.

[pawpaw]

Whoa, haven't been around much and missed this thread...looks like I have some reading to do.

[mjkoehler]

Nice one Camille!

[kydiddle]

MMJ should be proud to have such intelligent, well-spoken fans.

Props.

[MMJ_fanatic]

Got this today--I love it:


The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new health care plan being developed by the Obama Team. The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.

Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

[MMJ_fanatic]

But the guy holding up the bible saying he would raise hell if his tax dollars ever paid for an abortion was totally unhinged. And she calmly said that there is currently a federal law prohibiting that and there is nothing in any of the bills to change that and continued to scream "I don't believe you! I don't believe you!"

So. Tax dollars to kill a hundred thousand innocent civilians half a world away - no problem. But by all means every tax-paying bible-thumping nut job should stand between a woman and her doctor. That's not undue interference at all. That's patriotism! That's an informed citizenry taking a stand!

SO your Uncle Sam should be in the embryo and fetus destruction business?
There is language in the legislation providing federal funds for abortions--completely inappropriate.  Why would anyone buy any of the politicians' answers at face value when they've basically confessed that they do not have time to read these bills to begin with?  It is as if they're all saying "We know what is best for you!  Shut up and get out of our way."  Well, sorry there is no f'ing way that is going to happen with this issue and don't even get me started on how criminal this "cap and trade" bullshit is--too bad citizens didn't get as involved in that one as they are with this.

Have you read the bills?

a little background:

The Hyde Amendment:

Every year since 1976, Congress has approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal 'Title X' funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the woman's life. Although roughly 90 percent of all private insurance plans cover abortion services, there are additional federal mandates barring funds for abortion for women in the military, women using American Indian health services and women covered by government-run insurance plans.

That's the law.

*

Last week:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) stood on the floor of the U.S. House and argued, as he has previously, that taxpayer dollars should not be distributed to Planned Parenthood of America, a family planning organization that provides abortion services, among many other things. Though federal law already prohibits federal money from directly funding abortions, Pence argued that all of Planned Parenthood's funding should be stripped no matter what services the money is earmarked for, because funding any part of Planned Parenthood allows the organization to free up other resources to pay for abortions...

The 1,018-page health reform bill currently before the House makes no mention of abortion or any other specific medical services. This has prompted some anti-abortion advocates to claim that the bill contains a hidden "abortion mandate."
...

U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment that specifically states that abortion coverage cannot be named by any subsequent health benefits advisory board or the Department of Health and Human Services as an essential service. The language of this amendment effectively destroys any possibility of health care reform containing a "hidden abortion mandate."

The Capps amendment, which goes on to make clear that covering abortion services will never be required or prohibited for any health care plan, maintains the status quo prescribed by the Hyde Amendment. Only certain abortions — in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity, for instance — could be obtained using taxpayer funds.

Under the Capps amendment:

* Abortion coverage would not be part of the required minimum benefits package. In other words, insurers would not be required to offer, or be prohibited from offering, abortion services in order to participate in the exchange.

* The public plan could include abortion coverage, but the cost of the additional coverage could not be paid through public subsidies (tax dollars), only through the premiums paid by the insured. And with private plans in the exchange, again, federal subsidies could not be used for abortion coverage.

* Public funding would only be permitted for abortions allowed under the Hyde Amendment — in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger.

* At least one plan in every region must offer full abortion coverage; and one must not.

* Any insurance plan participating in the exchange cannot discriminate against hospitals or other health care facilities (such as Catholic hospitals) that are unwilling to provide abortions.

* The plan will not pre-empt any state laws regarding abortion, such as parental notification laws.

"The goal should be to maintain the current policies," Korzen said. "That Capps amendment accomplishes just that. It specifically prohibits taxpayers' funding of abortions.



additionally, interestingly:

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who supports abortion rights, partnered to sponsor a bill titled "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act," which creates a national adoption campaign, tax incentives for adoption and increased availability of ultrasound equipment.

Although the bill has been able to attract a wide variety of supporters from both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements, socially conservative activists reject it in part because it provides funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education.

Conservative activists consider emergency contraception, birth control pills and some other contraceptives as equivalent to abortion, leaving little room for compromise. Any health care reform bill that pays for coverage of virtually any women's reproductive health services, regardless of their legality and widespread acceptance, will be morally unacceptable to them.

***








So there you go. Maybe this was just a miscommunication. When I hear "Pro-Life" in these modern times, I understand it to be against elective abortions. Neither the (dominant) House bill nor the (only) Senate bill would allow the use of tax dollars for elective abortions.

If you take issue with a rape and incest victims having access to / receiving abortions, then... well, I guess first of all where was your righteous indignation when Medicaid allowed for them for the last 30 years under 2 Bushes and a Reagan? And this new super scary "Obamacare" does not change anything.

But more to the point, I would love to hear a rational justification for that position.

Same goes for if you consider birth control to be some sort of "abortion service." If so, just get on with it already and declare all women chattel.

Other than that, rest easy. Uncle Sam will not be in the embryo destruction business.

*

Good thing all these plans cover Viagra, though. Whew! That would've been rough.

Here ya go:
Fact: The bill as currently written will allow the federal government to classify abortion as an "essential benefit" — a health-care right that would be guaranteed to all Americans. This will make it illegal for health-care providers nationwide — even Catholic and religious-based hospitals with missions that reflect a fundamental moral objection to the killing of the unborn — to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it. As a result, the bill will repeal laws in many states that currently require commonsense limitations on abortion-on-demand, such as mandatory parental notification and waiting periods.

[el_chode]

As a matter of legal precedent in this country, it is illegal to interfere with a woman's ability to get an abortion, so I'm not sure how this really changes this. The bill still does not say that a hospital or provider cannot reasonably discourage, inform, or educate a woman before she gets an abortion. The legal standard is that they may not provide any substantial or burdensome obstacle to getting that abortion, such as a ridiculous waiting period.

Thanks to prophylactics the courts have established a right to privacy in the constitution regardless of the actual words not being there. As a result, no matter how much Congress woudl like to interfere with this, any government plan would instantly be challenged in the courts and likely eviscerated to the point where it no longer interferes.

In the long run, I believe that any such program is likely to be only very basic and perhaps easier to use since as a matter of constitutionality the federal government cannot pry into our lives in the same way a private entity could.

[camille]

Have you read the bills?

a little background:

The Hyde Amendment:

Every year since 1976, Congress has approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal 'Title X' funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the woman's life. Although roughly 90 percent of all private insurance plans cover abortion services, there are additional federal mandates barring funds for abortion for women in the military, women using American Indian health services and women covered by government-run insurance plans.

That's the law.

*

Last week:
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) stood on the floor of the U.S. House and argued, as he has previously, that taxpayer dollars should not be distributed to Planned Parenthood of America, a family planning organization that provides abortion services, among many other things. Though federal law already prohibits federal money from directly funding abortions, Pence argued that all of Planned Parenthood's funding should be stripped no matter what services the money is earmarked for, because funding any part of Planned Parenthood allows the organization to free up other resources to pay for abortions...

The 1,018-page health reform bill currently before the House makes no mention of abortion or any other specific medical services. This has prompted some anti-abortion advocates to claim that the bill contains a hidden "abortion mandate."
...

U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment that specifically states that abortion coverage cannot be named by any subsequent health benefits advisory board or the Department of Health and Human Services as an essential service. The language of this amendment effectively destroys any possibility of health care reform containing a "hidden abortion mandate."

The Capps amendment, which goes on to make clear that covering abortion services will never be required or prohibited for any health care plan, maintains the status quo prescribed by the Hyde Amendment. Only certain abortions — in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity, for instance — could be obtained using taxpayer funds.

Under the Capps amendment:

* Abortion coverage would not be part of the required minimum benefits package. In other words, insurers would not be required to offer, or be prohibited from offering, abortion services in order to participate in the exchange.

* The public plan could include abortion coverage, but the cost of the additional coverage could not be paid through public subsidies (tax dollars), only through the premiums paid by the insured. And with private plans in the exchange, again, federal subsidies could not be used for abortion coverage.

* Public funding would only be permitted for abortions allowed under the Hyde Amendment — in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger.

* At least one plan in every region must offer full abortion coverage; and one must not.

* Any insurance plan participating in the exchange cannot discriminate against hospitals or other health care facilities (such as Catholic hospitals) that are unwilling to provide abortions.

* The plan will not pre-empt any state laws regarding abortion, such as parental notification laws.

"The goal should be to maintain the current policies," Korzen said. "That Capps amendment accomplishes just that. It specifically prohibits taxpayers' funding of abortions.



additionally, interestingly:

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who supports abortion rights, partnered to sponsor a bill titled "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act," which creates a national adoption campaign, tax incentives for adoption and increased availability of ultrasound equipment.

Although the bill has been able to attract a wide variety of supporters from both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements, socially conservative activists reject it in part because it provides funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education.

Conservative activists consider emergency contraception, birth control pills and some other contraceptives as equivalent to abortion, leaving little room for compromise. Any health care reform bill that pays for coverage of virtually any women's reproductive health services, regardless of their legality and widespread acceptance, will be morally unacceptable to them.

***








So there you go. Maybe this was just a miscommunication. When I hear "Pro-Life" in these modern times, I understand it to be against elective abortions. Neither the (dominant) House bill nor the (only) Senate bill would allow the use of tax dollars for elective abortions.

If you take issue with a rape and incest victims having access to / receiving abortions, then... well, I guess first of all where was your righteous indignation when Medicaid allowed for them for the last 30 years under 2 Bushes and a Reagan? And this new super scary "Obamacare" does not change anything.

But more to the point, I would love to hear a rational justification for that position.

Same goes for if you consider birth control to be some sort of "abortion service." If so, just get on with it already and declare all women chattel.

Other than that, rest easy. Uncle Sam will not be in the embryo destruction business.

*

Good thing all these plans cover Viagra, though. Whew! That would've been rough.

Here ya go:
Fact: The bill as currently written will allow the federal government to classify abortion as an "essential benefit" — a health-care right that would be guaranteed to all Americans. This will make it illegal for health-care providers nationwide — even Catholic and religious-based hospitals with missions that reflect a fundamental moral objection to the killing of the unborn — to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it. As a result, the bill will repeal laws in many states that currently require commonsense limitations on abortion-on-demand, such as mandatory parental notification and waiting periods.

For f*cks sake.

Did you even bother to read the thing "quoted"?

I'm not kidding. This is... I can't even... this is why this will never end. Because stupid salacious made-up talking points will always attract more people than wonky, fact-based, policy discussion.

You are wrong. You are 100% wrong. You are soul-crushingly, eye-gougingly, wail for the fate of humanity in this godforsaken country WRONG.

Under the Capps amendment:

* Abortion coverage would not be part of the required minimum benefits package. In other words, insurers would not be required to offer, or be prohibited from offering, abortion services in order to participate in the exchange.

* The public plan could include abortion coverage, but the cost of the additional coverage could not be paid through public subsidies (tax dollars), only through the premiums paid by the insured. And with private plans in the exchange, again, federal subsidies could not be used for abortion coverage.

* Public funding would only be permitted for abortions allowed under the Hyde Amendment — in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger.

* At least one plan in every region must offer full abortion coverage; and one must not.

* Any insurance plan participating in the exchange cannot discriminate against hospitals or other health care facilities (such as Catholic hospitals) that are unwilling to provide abortions.

* The plan will not pre-empt any state laws regarding abortion, such as parental notification laws.

"The goal should be to maintain the current policies," Korzen said. "That Capps amendment accomplishes just that. It specifically prohibits taxpayers' funding of abortions.

I understand how over-the-top rude my language has been in this post. But this whole healthcare debate is, in fact, a life and death crisis for millions of people in this country. There are many legitimate things to debate - how to pay for it being right at the top, but the rest of this - the straight up LIES coming out of the right's smear campaign are so revolting they should be illegal. Slander laws should apply. And you are a part of that.

You've never known a family that's been bankrupted by medical costs? You have no relatives who have a hard time paying for their prescriptions? Is there a reason you have such a love for your corporate insurer? Have you ever been in a county emergency room? Do you understand the staggering numbers of kids in this country who have no access to primary health care - setting them up for a lifetime of chronic problems? Do you have anything factual to add to this discussion at all? Anything?

No, you're right. The big scary black man's trying to pull the plug on your grandma. And free abortions for all!

Yep. That was easier.

[MMJ_fanatic]

Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America

1) Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.

2) Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans--whether employer plans or individual plans--would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan "upgrades" will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.

3) The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a "public option" is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector "competitors" out of business sooner or later.

4) The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. ... If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that's going to make you well." Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?

5) Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don't buy government-approved health plans.

6) Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business ownerswho are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America's top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?

7) Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

8) Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn't explicitly exclude "abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan" or any bill that allows a federal health board to "recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package." Currently, these provisions do not exist.

9) It's Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.

10) Rushing It, Not Reading It: We've been down this road before--with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours--without reading it--or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it's pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.

For more information, please visit: http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com

[My Monkey Friend]

"the straight up LIES coming out of the right's smear campaign are so revolting they should be illegal. Slander laws should apply"

Pretty sure their is a large amount of bullshit coming from both sides. That's what makes this so unnerving, who do you believe? the right, who seem to be bent on slamming this bill? or the left- champions of free speech ( peoples party) yet wanting to ban a meeting of citizens speaking out against their bill? the left has said spewed as much ill timed trash as the right. lets keep in mind how disjointed both parties are before we make blanket statements based on what bill o'reilly or bill maher deem correct.