Obama Care a la Pelosi (the Oct 09 House Bill )

[evmori]

Page 110Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health planand, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions

 

Bad thing!

 

And from reading this, I'm befuddled as to how this will help anyone?

[GernBlansten]

Before you get all up in arms, I suggest you actually read these sections. Here's the link http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

 

Sec 222 E. (e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.

 

How your esteemed congress critter spun this into thinking Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government run health plan is a great step into bizarro world.

[scoutldr]

"Prohibited as part of minimum benefits package"

 

Sounds like it COULD be included...just not in the "minimum package", whatever that is. You have to read this stuff like a lawyer...do not ASSUME anything.

 

As I've pointed out before, the bill, once signed into public law, is one thing...it's the "regulations" published in the CFR that will be the nitty-gritty. Looks to me there will be something for everyone to dislike.

[Mr. Boyce]

I agree with scoutldr.

 

Abortion funding has to be specifically outlawed.

 

An amazing, whopping 71% of us don't want federal money going to pay for abortions: that's the real public mandate on this issue.

 

It's been painful, educational, and even morbidly interesting to watch Mr. Obama dissemble so much on this.

 

A great majority of Americans want restrictions on abortion, but our self-described "centrist" president is doing anything but.

[Mr. Boyce]

I say this as a political moderate, and I refuse to be categorized as an extremist of some evil or dangerous type simply because I feel a deep moral concern for human life.

 

Rather, organizations such as Amnesty International, the ACLU and others should be condemning the killing of human life.

[Beavah]

Yah, I love it when a bunch of political hacks from one party or another try to witch-hunt up random text from a huge bill in order to get others to froth at the mouth. There's so much just-plain-crap flyin' around that da average citizen is likely just to favor their party's proclivities rather than become truly informed on da bill.

 

I think yeh all need to take the time to read the thing. Congress too. But it's good to start with some different legislative analyses like

 

http://opencrs.com (search for HR 3200 to find several good expositions of provisions)

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/hsr-hr3200-faqs.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/past90days.cfm

 

Those help get yeh the lay of the land.

 

I'm only about a quarter of the way through the beast. My view so far is that it's not terrible. While there are some things that aren't perfect or may have potential pitfalls, I also am not an expert in this field. So far, from what I've read, I'm cautiously OK with it. Any legislation this size with this many lobbyist vultures hanging around is going to have some good, some bad, and some nutty stuff in it, eh? Just look at da nonsense that gets tacked on to war funding bills. But it ain't terrible, and the fact it's gettin' a lot of scrutiny is helpin' to keep some of the nutty stuff under control.

 

My loose thought so far is that it doesn't do enough to relieve American businesses and manufacturing of the health care costs that are crippling our industry in da worldwide competitive marketplace. Wish da Republicans would get on about that rather than bein' the "party of No." All the "gotta keep employer coverage" folks are forgettin' about that aspect. Yeh don't get to keep your employer coverage when your employer goes under or cuts it, eh? And losin' more American businesses and jobs hurts us in da long run quite probably hurts us more than a public option for health care.

 

Da bill in places is appropriately cautious, givin' staged implementation and the like so that things can be adjusted down the road as we gain experience with the system.

 

So not terrible. So far. But I challenge yeh all to actually read the thing or at least hunt up the (relatively) non-partisan analysis rather than buyin' into the idiot blather that's goin' around on both sides of the issue.

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten]

I believe if you read the entire section, it says abortions will not be funded under this if existing law prohibits it. The Hyde amendment outlaws federal funding of abortions. If the Hyde amendment is overturned or not renewed, then yes, by not specifically outlawing in here it could be construed as allowing it, but that takes some pretty impressive prestidigitation and mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. But that is where your battle lines should be drawn, at the Hyde Amendment, not in this bill. To put legislation in this bill that is already taken care of in an existing law is redundant and ridiculous.

 

This section is not even necessary and was only included to placate the religious right. A lot of good that did eh?

[GernBlansten]

BTW Beavah, its not HR 3200 anymore, the latest bill AKA PelosiCare/ObamaCare/EndoftheWorldCare is

H. R. 3962

[CalicoPenn]

I now present to you, in it's entirety below this sentence, the Republican Counter Proposal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impressive, isn't it?

[scoutldr]

And actually, that's the proposal I favor.

[GernBlansten]

Well, it is easy to read and understand. Probably why so many conservatives favor it.

[John-in-KC]

"My loose thought so far is that it doesn't do enough to relieve American businesses and manufacturing of the health care costs that are crippling our industry in da worldwide competitive marketplace. Wish da Republicans would get on about that rather than bein' the "party of No." All the "gotta keep employer coverage" folks are forgettin' about that aspect. Yeh don't get to keep your employer coverage when your employer goes under or cuts it, eh? And losin' more American businesses and jobs hurts us in da long run quite probably hurts us more than a public option for health care."

 

Actually, Beavah, my Congresscritter is the vice Chair and ranking minority member of the House Small Business Committee. He reports he has a working relationship and friendship with his Chairwoman. They've taken proposed legislation on the small business issues ... stuff they both agreed on ... to the House leadership.

 

They've been told to pound sand.

 

218+51+1. The Democrats have way more than that, and they're not stopping this Juggernaut for any conservative ideas, good, bad or indifferent.

 

 

[gwd-scouter]

John Boehner (sp?) was interviewed by CNN John King over the weekend and asked repeatedly about why the Republicans have not submitted their own bill. His answer, over and over, was that people need to go to GOP.gov website where there are eight or nine points listed that would work to reform healthcare. No, it's not a bill, but a series of individual bills that have been presented.

 

My question is: if these eight or nine points are so great, and as the Republicans continue to say they have the real answers to healthcare reform, why don't they put their own bill together, have it scored by the CBO and present that to the American people? I have heard that Boehner plans to do this during the floor debate coming up on the healthcare bill as it stands now. This is going to be very interesting.