Brushfires & Fantasies: How long before health care bill is too big to pass?
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Before we get to the fight at hand — why not re-fight a battle (on new ground) that's been raging for, oh, about 35 years?
(And get some inspiration from the man who couldn't finish the job 15 years ago?)
In a thousand-cuts kind of bill, some of the cuts are self-inflicted. The bleeding now, over abortion rights, adds to the long list of complications for Democrats who are balancing tricky math on the Hill.
An attempt at healing, though after the fact: "This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," President Obama told ABC's Jake Tapper in an interview yesterday.
But the president is no longer quite right. The health care bill has become an abortion bill — and an immigration bill, and a tax bill, and a jobs bill, and a spending bill — not to mention the most significant re-working of the nation's health care system in half a century.
The growing scope is a consequence of the scope of the president's ambitions, plus the ever-expanding need to attract more votes for something that not everyone agrees is a policy or political winner. (How long before we hear from Republicans that health care reform is simply too big not to fail?)
On the issue of the week — the Stupak amendment that's roiling the left, and has dozens of liberal House Democrats threatening to sink health care reform over the bill's handling of abortion — the president is weighing in fairly definitively: It doesn't work for him.
"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," the president told Tapper.
This strengthens the hand of those who are pushing to eliminate or water down the provision. But might we be past the point where presidential proclamations dictate vote totals? (And might there have been a stronger case to make before the House vote?)
Plus, this exchange that Republicans have clipped and saved: "Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?" Tapper asked.
"Yes," the president said. "I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks."
For Democrats, it's ideology vs. pragmatism: "If the flexibility shown by party leaders on issues like abortion and the proposed government-run insurance plan has kept the legislative process on track, it has also left many liberals off balance and risked alienating the party's base as the midterm elections approach," The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and David Herszenhorn report.
"Democrats are now encountering the complications of that success [in 2006 and 2008], and a task that faced Republicans during periods of both the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations: How to manage an ideologically diverse caucus to produce legislative victories without alienating base voters."
Before we're back to health care, a big presidential moment: The Obamas arrive at Fort Hood, Texas, around 12:50 pm ET, and the president will make remarks at approximately 2 pm ET.
"President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will attend the memorial service for those killed in Thursday's shootings at Fort Hood. The Obamas will meet with families of the 13 soldiers and civilians killed at III Corps Headquarters in Fort Hood. Afterward the President will speak at the memorial service to the broader Fort Hood community," per ABC's Sunlen Miller. "In addition the President and the First Lady will also meet with the soldiers wounded in last week's attack who are recovering at Darnall Army Medical Center. 43 people were injured in the attack, according the Fort Hood public affairs office."
The president, on Fort Hood, in the interview with Tapper: "We are going to complete this investigation and we're going to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again."
On his decision-making on Afghanistan: "Ultimately when I make a decision, it's going to be based on the overarching view of US national security," the president said. "But I think I would be making poorer decisions if I didn't have to look into the eyes of a family member who had lost a loved one and tell them how grateful we are as a nation… That moment, I think, ensures that I'm making the best possible decisions going forward."
Tapper reports: "Senior administration officials tell ABC News that President Obama at his war council meeting tomorrow will assess five different specific strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan, the recommendations put forward by Gen. Stanley McChrystal being one of those five strategies."
"At his meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday, October 30, President Obama asked the Pentagon officials to assess in detail the four other strategy options — missions, troop requirements, cost. All five options increase the levels of US troops in Afghanistan. The president has not yet been presented with those four new assessments," Tapper continues.
Per the AP's Anne Gearan and Steven R. Hust: "President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though probably not quite the 40,000 sought by his top general there. The White House emphasized that the president hasn't made a decision yet about troop levels or other aspects of the revised U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Administration officials told The Associated Press on Monday the deployment would most probably begin in January with a mission to stiffen the defense of 10 key cities and towns."
As for Tuesday: "Presidents get elected to run the nation. Some days that means knowing how to heal it," the AP's Ben Feller writes. "For the first time since winning the White House, President Barack Obama faces such a moment Tuesday at Fort Hood. After a shooting that left 13 people dead and 29 wounded on the bustling Texas Army post, it is Obama's job to offer some comf ort, if not answers."
Amid more questions: "U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News," per ABC's Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole, and Brian Ross. "According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan's contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response."
This gets bigger — and the congressional drumbeat for full investigations will make it bigger still:
"Intelligence agencies intercepted communications last year and this year between the military psychiatrist accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., and a radical cleric in Yemen known for his incendiary anti-American teachings," David Johnston and Scott Shane write in The New York Times. "But the federal authorities dropped an inquiry into the matter after deciding that the messages from the psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, did not suggest any threat of violence and concluding that no further action was warranted."
More warning signs: "The Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid ‘adverse events,' the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims," The Washington Post's Dana Priest reports.
Said Hasan, in his presentation: "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims."
Back on health care — with President Obama out of town, it's in former President Bill Clinton's hands on Tuesday. He's the lunch guest for the Senate Democratic caucus.
"Clinton, whose own attempt to pass a health reform package fifteen years ago did not pass either House of Congress, was asked by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make the pep talk, according to an aide familiar with the discussion," per ABC's Z. Byron Wolf. "Clinton is expected to speak to Democratic senators at a closed caucus meeting, urging them to see past differences to pass compromise legislation."
The abortion fight is awkward terrain for Democrats — and has been for decades. Yet this overwhelming Democratic majority, with its caucus made up overwhelmingly of abortion-rights supporters, is tearing itself up over an abortion restriction it's hard to imagine passing in the Bush era?
All the lobbying energy now is focused on keeping the Stupak language out of the Senate bill. Then it's on to conference and — who knows.
"Abortion rights supporters are now fighting back, vowing to keep Stupak's amendment from being a part of the final legislation which ultimately reaches President Obama's desk," per ABC's Teddy Davis. "Although liberal House Democrats voted over the weekend for the health-care bill with the Stupak amendment, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., is collecting signatures from colleagues who are vowing to oppose any conference report that includes the Stupak restriction."
"At least 40 House members pledged to reject the final bill if the abortion provision survives in the Senate and the conference that joins the Senate and House versions into a single piece of legislation," the Los Angeles Times' James Oliphant and Kim Geiger report. "The tumult over abortion now travels to the Senate, where it promises to cause headaches for Democrats still wrestling with fundamental issues of cost, coverage and revenue in their version of the health bill."
Do threats like this sound familiar? "The flurry of letter-writing and threats to bring down the bill over the abortion issue mirrored an earlier battle over the public insurance option. And in that debate, liberals vowed to vote down any version of the plan not based on Medicare rates only to later vote en masse for a weaker version," Roll Call's Tory Newmyer and Steven T. Dennis report.
Wasn't this better fought on the House floor? "It wasn't a surprise; the only people it apparently surprised are NARAL and Planned Parenthood," FireDogLake.com's Jane Hamsher said on ABCNews.com's "Top Line" Monday.
Asks The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn: "The Abortion Amendment: Could Obama Have Done More?"
Look who's talking primaries now: "There's elections coming up in 2010. We will know who stood with us and who stood against us," NARAL president Nancy Keenan tells Jill Lawrence, of Politics Daily. "Nothing's off the table. … It's a new day and I'm here to tell you we're going to hold those accountable who voted against us." The argument for keeping Stupak language: "By essentially sacrificing abortion and immigrant rights to get conservative Democrats to vote for expanded health care coverage, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi restored the old order within the party — an order that had helped Democrats establish dominance on Capitol Hill for decades," Peter Beinart writes for The Daily Beast. "Today, to a degree we haven't seen in a long time, the Democratic Party is about economic protection first, and cultural freedom second. Her action was a long time in coming."
Repercussions in the Senate: "If it doesn't make it clear that it does not pay for abortion, you can be sure I will vote against it," Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., tells The Wall Street Journal's Naftali Bendavid and Janet Adamy.
Plus: "Other key moderates didn't go quite that far, but at least two others — Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana — said they, too, want to ensure that the Senate bill prevents federal dollars from paying for abortion," Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown and Jonathan Allen report.
Repercussions in the only Senate race pending: "Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion," The Boston Globe's Matt Viser reports.
Said Coakley: "To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress – it's at the expense of women's access to reproductive rights."
Said her chief rival, Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass. (calling the statement "manna from heaven" for his campaign): "She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy's legacy on health care. It's pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill.''
More broadly — where's the reform in health care reform? "As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama's promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending," Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports in The New York Times.
What of the price tag? "The official $1.1 trillion price tag for the House Democrats' health care bill excludes dozens of unfunded programs that could drive up costs when future congresses look to fund them," Stephen Dinan writes for the Washington Times. "Republicans said the health care bill includes two dozen programs whose funding is listed as ‘such sums as may be necessary.' That amounts to legislative jargon, they said, for ‘We'll bill you later.' "
Losing focus? "Reforming the chaotic and unfair health care system in the U.S. is an important issue. But in terms of pressing national priorities, the most important are the need to find solutions to a catastrophic employment environment that is devastating American families and to end the folly of an 8-year-old war that is both extremely debilitating and ultimately unwinnable," Bob Herbert writes in The New York Times.
Good luck trying to tug the health care bill leftward from here: "The House vote does nothing to change the thus-far intractable public option math in the Senate: There are, at best, 57 to 58 votes for any form of the public option," per Politico's Glenn Thrush.
The American Medical Association remains on board — beating back a challenge from within its own ranks. From the AMA release: "The AMA reaffirmed its support for health system reform alternatives that are consistent with AMA policies concerning pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of physician practice and universal access for patients. It also outlined specific elements it will actively and publicly support and oppose as the health system debate continues. The AMA's support for H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3961 remains in place."
On financial reform, the wait is over: "Senator Christopher Dodd will propose creating a single U.S. regulator that would strip the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. of bank- supervision authority," Bloomberg's Alison Vekshin reports. "Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, would eliminate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision and fold the Treasury Department units into the new bank regulator…. The Connecticut Democrat is scheduled to release a draft of his financial-regulation overhaul plan today in Washington."
ABC's Matthew Jaffe: "Under Dodd's bill, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would lose many of their bank supervisory powers, a source in the financial industry told ABC News. In their place, a single bank regulator would be charged with monitoring all banks and bank holding companies, closing loopholes that allowed banks to shop around for their preferred regulator."
It's on, in Florida: "The conservative Club for Growth is endorsing former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) over Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) in next year's Florida Senate race, citing Rubio's more conservative record on the stimulus, taxes, and cap-and-trade," ABC's Teddy Davis reports.
"Crist is overwhelmingly beating Rubio in statewide polls and money-raising, but the contest is drawing national attention as the highest-profile example of the moderate vs. conservative battle within the GOP," Adam Smith reports in the St. Petersburg Times. "The influential Club for Growth, which helped push Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter into the Democratic Party and recently spent about $1 million to defeat a liberal Republican in an upstate New York congressional election, on Monday formally endorsed Rubio."
A big Democratic opportunity (and maybe good news for Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.?): "An emotional Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Monday that she will not seek re-election next year, signaling the end of a tenure that brought her the highest popularity ratings in Connecticut history and setting off a scramble to replace her when she steps down in January 2011," Christopher Keating and Jon Lender write in the Hartford Courant.
Book your tickets now (remembering that Sioux Falls isn't the easiest Iowa destination to reach): Sarah Palin will be signing copies of her forthcoming memoir, "Going Rogue," at the Barnes & Noble in Sioux City, Iowa, on Sunday, Dec. 6, according a list of tour dates posted by the bookstore chain.
The Kicker:
"What's the alternative? To remain in the minority? I tried that for 12 years, and this is much better, whatever the makeup of the caucus." — Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., on the diversity of views inside the Democratic caucus.
"My name's a verb now." — Dede Scozzafava, to The Washington Post, now that it's possible for candidates to get "Scozzafaved."
For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note's blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Intern for the ABC News Political Unit:
The ABC News Political Unit is now seeking full-time spring 2010 interns in Washington, D.C.
The paid internship begins Monday, Jan. 4, 2010, and runs through Friday, June 4, 2010.
Political Unit interns attend political events and contribute to stories for the politics page of ABCNews.com. They also help ABC News by conducting research, maintaining our calendar of upcoming political events, and posting stories to ABCNews.com.
In order to apply, you MUST be either a graduat e student or an undergraduate student who has completed his or her first year of college. The internship is NOT open to recent graduates.
You also must be able to work eight hours per day, Monday through Friday. Interns will be paid $8.50/hour.
If you write well, follow politics closely, and have some familiarity with web publishing, send a cover letter and resume to Teddy Davis, ABC News' Deputy Political Director, at teddy.davis@abc.com, by Sunday, Nov. 22, 2009, with the subject line: "INTERN" in all caps.
Please indicate in both your cover letter and the body of your email your student status and the specific dates and hours of your availability.
Email
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
Of course the anti-Obama media ignores the major victory on Saturday night and creates illusions of disaster for the president at every turn…
Posted by: Matt | November 10, 2009, 8:27 am 8:27 am
How long before health care bill is too big to pass? You are kidding, right?
This bill is already an albatross around politicians necks that has them all scared of being re-elected. I’m surprised Cap and Trade isn’t in this bill along with the White house dinner menu.
How much more does the White house think the American people will put up with? This bill has gone way beyond a Health Care reform bill and you can blame all the special interest that have bought the politicians. ENOUGH ALREADY!
Posted by: indymind | November 10, 2009, 8:43 am 8:43 am
The health care bill is not yet finalized but the country has been nervous since the beginning…
Posted by: Nothing2Loose | November 10, 2009, 8:47 am 8:47 am
The fact is that the majority of Americans now OPPOSE abortion, but if the liberal whackjobs in Washington have their way, the taxpayers will end up funding many of these disgusting procedures.
Isn’t it ironic that the left screams WE MUST HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE! But they somehow couldn’t care less if people opposed to abortion have the freedom to “choose” whether or not their hard-earned tax dollars fund many of these abortions?
This of course is all part of the smoke and mirrors surrounding this 2000 page bill. The gov’t “option” will end up consuming our entire healthcare system. Because at the end of the day, NO private company can compete with the tentacles of gov’t.
Posted by: Dave | November 10, 2009, 9:09 am 9:09 am
Keep it up ‘Club for Growth’! (Ha ha, should be called Club to Shrink the Republican Party) You are destroying your Party!
I think its funny all the pundits told us the public option was dead, dead, dead, and then it pops up in the House bill. Do you guys ever admit you are wrong, wrong, wrong?
Posted by: Amy in Maine | November 10, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am
Thats because our founding fathers never intended for socialized health care. Our constitution isnt setup for it. These means, we dont do it. Period.
Posted by: dillholedemo | November 10, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
Congress only knows how to complicate bills, and add pork to them, and make them about many things simultaneously.
They have no knowledge of a clean streamlined, focused bill. They don’t know how to do that.
That is another reason why this bill should NOT be passed. It no longer is just about health care.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | November 10, 2009, 10:00 am 10:00 am
I think the media has milked this story, and has gotten all the mileage it can from it.
Posted by: Thinking | November 10, 2009, 10:00 am 10:00 am
“I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,”
THAT is the president being definitive? Sounds like the same old BHO that we all know, can’t make a decision.
Posted by: Shane | November 10, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
The fact is that the majority of Americans now OPPOSE abortion, but if the liberal whackjobs in Washington have their way, the taxpayers will end up funding many of these disgusting procedures.
Isn’t it ironic that the left screams WE MUST HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE! But they somehow couldn’t care less if people opposed to abortion have the freedom to “choose” whether or not their hard-earned tax dollars fund many of these abortions?
This of course is all part of the smoke and mirrors surrounding this 2000 page bill. The gov’t “option” will end up consuming our entire healthcare system. Because at the end of the day, NO private company can compete with the tentacles of gov’t.
Posted by: Dave | Nov 10, 2009 9:09:11 AM
_______________________________________________
Great post, Dave! I’d just like to throw in along with this some things that have crossed my mind.
First of all, while the liberals are shouting about a “woman’s choice”, have they ever thought that maybe a woman’s choice SHOULD happen BEFORE having sex? Of course, it should be a man’s choice as well. What I’m saying is, there are so many options out there to prevent pregnancy, that it boggles my mind why more people don’t just take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. Doesn’t it make more sense to use protection and not get pregnant if you’re not ready for that, than to be ignorant about it and take away an innocent life later? It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.
Having said that, I do not disagree with abortion in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother. In those cases the woman never had the chance to make a choice to begin with.
But all in all, we have become a society of “quick fixes”. Unfortunately, this includes the life of the unborn, when it doesn’t HAVE to be that way. And, as Dave said above, it’s not fair that those of us opposed to abortion have no “choice” in our tax dollars funding these procedures. By doing that, they are taking my “personal responsibility” of working and paying taxes and giving it to someone else who couldn’t care less.
Posted by: Shoe | November 10, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
amy b in maine meet the senate a whole diffrent entity
Posted by: natale from mass. | November 10, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
Yes Rick, for 35 years the republicans have been fighting to keep american taxpayers from having affordable health care..using the same tactics and rhetoric to scare the voters as they did last time–they had ample opportunity to fix the problems in health care..all they have done is pass legislation that further lined the pockets of the health care and drug industries, while americans have had to go without medications and—ANY kind of medical care..Death panels have been going on for years-because people were denied care..We are having a rally in frount of our republican congressmans office on friday, to protest his disgraceful behavior when the health care bill passed congress…we do not elect politicians to represent us in such a childish manner, I am embarrassed to say i voted for Greg Walden in the last election..
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 11:14 am 11:14 am
“Yes,” the president said. “I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks.”
Unlike the “tricks” used in creating or saving jobs, unemployment rate and declaring an end to the recession.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 10, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
Dave, you shouldn’t try to misrepresent the facts, the majority of americans-DO_ support a womans right to chose, and that is what it is about…Freedon of Choice…don’t confuse your religious beliefs, with my personal choice-you are entitled to your beliefs as i am entitled to mine, the laws in this country, unlike say- Iran- are not based on religious grounds and our founding fathers were very aware of the dangers of that because of religious persecution in the countrys of Europe…having said that-I don’t believe it should be covered under health care reform…unless it is rape or incest.
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 11:24 am 11:24 am
Obama : “government funds will not be used for abortions”. That was stated at a town hall meeting as a woman posed the question “will my taxes go towards any abortions”?
Posted by: lfrichar | November 10, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am
some of you obviously need to use the public option to get your earwax removed so that what goes in your ears actually reaches your brain..I can’t believe you don’t think before you speak, you just run on emotional drivel…not facts
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
Abortion is the perfect example of why there must be separation of church and state. It is technically a medical procedure that the Christian Right opposes on Moral grounds. They are imposing their religious beliefs upon everyone – no matter what anyone else believes. THAT is why abortion is so problematic. It should be allowed as a medical procedure. If you are opposed, then do not get one. However, YOUR opposition does not give YOU the right to DENY all others THEIR RIGHT to make their own choices. Yes, it should be covered, just like vasectomy, viagra and other reproductive procedures.
Posted by: kay | November 10, 2009, 11:34 am 11:34 am
I received this in an an email and it is so TRUE! Just because we are in love with the powers that may be the track record does not change. – To President Obama _and all_ 535 voting members of the Legislature: It is now official you are ALL inept. 1. The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke. 2. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke. 3. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke. 4. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more. 5. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke. 6. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke. 7. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure. You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars. AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
Posted by: TX_MBell | November 10, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Welcome back, Cowgirl!
Posted by: Amy in Maine | November 10, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am
You bet. Let’s focus on the “Facts”. There is too much fantasy in the bill.
Posted by: TX_MBell | November 10, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
Thanks Amy…this fight is too important not to weigh in on it, and apparently the creepy crawlers have crawled out of their spider holes to spred their venom and lies…yet again..
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
Kay …you made a very good point…we should not have to pay for viagra, just because republication want to get an erection-finally-none of the young -men-in DC will be safe
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
Abortion is the perfect example of why there must be separation of church and state. It is technically a medical procedure that the Christian Right opposes on Moral grounds. They are imposing their religious beliefs upon everyone – no matter what anyone else believes. THAT is why abortion is so problematic. It should be allowed as a medical procedure. If you are opposed, then do not get one. However, YOUR opposition does not give YOU the right to DENY all others THEIR RIGHT to make their own choices. Yes, it should be covered, just like vasectomy, viagra and other reproductive procedures.
Posted by: kay | Nov 10, 2009 11:34:37 AM
My opposition to abortion is, first and foremost, a “moral issue” as you say. However, it has now gone way into my “secular” sense as well.
As I said in an earlier post, birth control methods are EVERYWHERE, so, as a woman (or a man) you have the CHOICE before having sex to protect against becoming pregnant. It’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I know that’s a new term for many liberals, but you need to learn about it.
Next, we have the financial part of it. I DO NOT want MY tax money going to pay for someone else’s lack of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If you are not ready for children, then either take the steps early to prevent it, or practice abstinence. But DO NOT put your “I’m not using protection” ignorance over on MY taxes! This really isn’t that hard to understand. Don’t want to crack your head while riding a bike? Wear a helmet. Don’t want to have a hangover? Don’t get drunk. Don’t want to gain weight? Don’t overeat. Don’t want to get pregnant? USE PROTECTION!!
In cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, that’s a different ball game. They aren’t at fault for what was done to them or what could happen to them if the birth could endanger their life. Other than that, it is just YOUR choice. I don’t care whether or not you have an abortion. That’s not my call. But if MY money is going to possibly pay for it when I’m totally against it on a secular AND religious level, then I think I deserve to at least voice my anger.
Posted by: Shoe | November 10, 2009, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
TX_MBell you said it all!! What do we do now?
Posted by: Carol in Alabama | November 10, 2009, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
TX-MBell….are you saying..you read the health care bill???? Or are you just repeating some right wing drivel???
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 12:13 pm 12:13 pm
TX_MBell – Couldn’t agree more as there is NO MONEY for health care. When the anointed one took office on January 20 2009 the debt of the federal government was $10.6 Trillion and as of 6 November 2009 it had increased to $11.9T which is roughly a 12% increase just in the time that this administration has been in charge. This administration is not responsible for all of the debt as the debt of the federal government has not decreased since the administration of Herbert Hoover. Only a thirteen of the forty-four administrations (James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover) have actually decreased the federal debt over the history of our country. During this time the idiots in DC have used the accounting trick of borrowing money to balance the federal annual budget, in simple words spending beyond their means. If Joe Citizen were to use this practice he would end up in jail for this type of irresponsible spending.
Additionally the idiots have taken funds which were paid by the taxpayer into Social Security and Medicare and transferred the funds into the General Fund where it has been used to balance the annual budget. As both Medicare and Social Security do not pay out to the taxpayer until they are in their 60’s the unfunded liability of these programs just to pay those now paying into the system is $35.6T ($29.9T Medicare and $5.7T Social Security).
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that for the country to survive spending above the revenue taken in by the government MUST stop and the government MUST begin to pay down the federal debt NOW. TO spend any additional money which will increase the federal debt is totally irresponsible on the part of the idiots in DC.
Posted by: Sandcrab 1613 | November 10, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Cowgirl
According to a Rasmussen poll, 55% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong most of the time. So I was speaking correctly (especially since Rasmussen gave the most leading poll #’s on the most recent election in new jersey, new york and virginia).
My point is that the gov’t will eventually find a way to have MY tax dollars fund abortions. Now, where is the “choice” for me in that? Don’t you think choice is good thing?
Anytime the gov’t has tried to run anything, it has become more costly and more expansive then originally anticipated.
Also, google barry O saying in a chicago conference several years back “I happen to be an advocate for a single payer health care system”. That is his true intention!
Barry hates capitalism and speaks of this great country as if it were rwanda (like most liberals i know).
I for one do not want a group of limousine liberals dictating from their thrones in Washington what kind of care my family recieves. That is the opposite of freedom.
Posted by: Dave | November 10, 2009, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
Shoe…what is the point of this conversation???? Funding abortion is out of this health care bill,,,its a mute point, why continue to argue and be outraged..when it is no longer there???
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
Dave those were local elections…we elected a mayor who was a democrat in a republican town..never made the national news…LOL..local elections have nothing to do with a national agenda and issues like abortion…LOCAL elections are based on local issues that are focused within that particular state….don’t try to make it any more than what it was..the only congressman elected in this cycle was a democrat..they are the ones who actually make public policy nationwide.
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
Cowgirl
NO ONE has read the bill….it’s 2000 pages. That is not “right wing drival”, it’s the truth.
We are all just supposed to hold our breath and hope that a bunch of limousine liberals, with millions of dollars in their bank accounts and ZERO experience working at a real job, are going to run health care. These idiots are out of touch with real Americans.
Why do liberals always think that elites in Washington can run their lives better then they can run them themselves?
Posted by: Dave | November 10, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
Amy and Cowgirl: “”"”"the creepy crawlers have crawled out of their spider holes to spred their venom and lies…yet again”"”"”
Why, because they don’t agree with you? What lies are being spread?
Posted by: lfrichar | November 10, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
Dave if you haven’t read the bill yourself-you cannot “verify” that what is being said is the truth, in other words..you are believing..not what YOU know to be true, but what suits you-to believe…I have heard every other republican with a different claim and different set of figures and claims…so why believe any of it…this bill cleared as being a “neutral deficit” bill by the GAO, thats good enough for me.
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
Oh yah Dave, unless you are a billonaire..cough..you won’t be paying taxes to support this bill…Unless you are one of those medicare providers that has been double billing the gov, unless you are part of the fraud and corruption, I wouldn’t be worried..by the way, its not the medicare patients who are defrauding..its thosy…pesky healthcare providers who the government is going after…
Posted by: cowgirl | November 10, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
cowgirl
I am not claiming to know what is in the bill. I am claiming to know that gov’t is not the answer, it’s the problem.
Liberals refuse to believe that out of control government growth in germany, russia, china, vietnam, cambodia, has led to the murder of 250,000,000 people in the last 100 years.
Socialism (which is the path to communism according to karl marx) has been tried and failed many times- it doesn’t work. As margarent thatcher said” the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.
And that is what this bill is. A “gov’t option” will consume our entire healthcare system.
Of course we need health reform, but to call a government takeover “reform” is deceptive. (Kind of like the ridiculous group who hides behind the name of American Civil Liberties Union, but fights to overturn the right to bear arms and protects pedophile groups).
Look deeper then the cover cowgirl.
Posted by: Dave | November 10, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
“”"”"this bill cleared as being a “neutral deficit” bill by the GAO, thats good enough for me.”"”"”
Posted by: cowgirl
“Good enough for government work” right? This GAO had a cash for clunkers program. They had $1 billion for 5 months of the program. Finl tally, $3 billion in just 1 month. They didn’t expect the “popularity” of the program. The GAO “estimates” only 5% of the population will accept the “public option” on this bill. That is 15 million people out of over 300 million. Are you still going to trust them?
Posted by: lfrichar | November 10, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Shoe…what is the point of this conversation???? Funding abortion is out of this health care bill,,,its a mute point, why continue to argue and be outraged..when it is no longer there???
Posted by: cowgirl | Nov 10, 2009 12:22:43 PM
The point of the conversation was an answer to another poster’s rantings. I’m sick and tired of hearing about a woman’s “choice”, when, as I’ve said before, a “choice” can be made BEFOREHAND to prevent the pregnancy so an abortion won’t even BE an issue.
And even IF the funding for abortion stays out of the bill (we don’t know for sure that it will), the point that the liberals even WANTED it in there at all tells me that a woman’s “choice” is more important than MY “choice” to NOT want to pay more taxes because of it.
And that is the end of the conversation.
Posted by: Shoe | November 10, 2009, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Shoe and Cowgirl: We won’t know what’s in this bill until they pass it most likely. Transparency is not included in this bill. Pelosi said this bill will not be put out there.
Posted by: lfrichar | November 10, 2009, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
Shoe
In my opinion, abortion should not be a political issue.
You will never convince some people that terminating a pregnancy isn’t murder, and yet thousands of women will seek any means to stop the process within their bodies. Obviously, to these women, many who go on to have other children, abortion is not murder.
Not every serious issue needs to be treated politically. The only reason Republicans love the abortion debate is because it gins up the base – making the issue political doesn’t help stop the practice, doesn’t make men behave responsibly, doesn’t support the unplanned children, doesn’t bolster the young women confronted with these pressures.
Nope, the political debate doesn’t help anyone, but it sure makes political hay for the politicans.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | November 10, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
The facts are the facts. The bill is still evolving since the content of the bill is still subject to amendments, riders, and pork. Which makes its content trivial. Bottom line is that the government’s track record of “good intentioned” legislation is a foreboding of what will become of this legislation. What we do next is mobilize in our local communities and states to watch each others backs and to expose those that try to hijack our representation. They are doing that by taking advantage of our naive complacency when candidates are chosen and by taking the ear of our representatives while claiming to represent the will and values of our communities. We need Watchmen (Men, Women, and Youth) in our representative areas to identify and expose the influences that seek to manipulate our democracy. It’s time for all Americans to meet and know their neighbors. If we don’t then the outside agenda-laden community organizers will strip our freedoms. For the moment the loudest voices are of the few that seek after the government to be their caretaker. To understand this we must not forget history and everyone needs to understand the impact this has on everyone’s future quality of life. This legislation is no longer about health care. It is about the power being centralized in a government that will be able to rule through the fear of penalties, denial of services, and oppression of our constitutional liberties. I am but one watchman sounding an alert to villages everywhere. Their sentries need to take heed.
Posted by: TX_MBell | November 10, 2009, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
Shoe
In my opinion, abortion should not be a political issue.
You will never convince some people that terminating a pregnancy isn’t murder, and yet thousands of women will seek any means to stop the process within their bodies. Obviously, to these women, many who go on to have other children, abortion is not murder.
Not every serious issue needs to be treated politically. The only reason Republicans love the abortion debate is because it gins up the base – making the issue political doesn’t help stop the practice, doesn’t make men behave responsibly, doesn’t support the unplanned children, doesn’t bolster the young women confronted with these pressures.
Nope, the political debate doesn’t help anyone, but it sure makes political hay for the politicans.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | Nov 10, 2009 1:42:23 PM
Amy
I agree with you to an extent. You are right that a political debate doesn’t help anyone, but in this case, the Democrats brought it up. Even Obama said that federal subsidies should not be used for abortions, yet the Democratic arm of Congress tried to get that very provision tucked into the bill. So, what did that do? It ginned up THEIR base.
But, Amy, here’s my bottom line…I am a pro-lifer and do not make apologies for that. I also am not one to tell other people whether they can or cannot do something. It’s not for me to decide. HOWEVER, we are talking about a LIFE here. It’s bad enough that my tax dollars are being used on bank bailouts and stimulus plans that aren’t working, but when the possibility arises that my tax dollars might be used to take a life (or a “mistake” as some like to call it), that is where the line has to be drawn.
Just think about this…we have some states that don’t even allow the death penalty for murderers, MURDERERS, but these same states have no problem with a “woman’s choice” to take the life of her “mistake”. It’s a screwed up world.
Posted by: Shoe | November 10, 2009, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
Shoe
Let’s make chemical castration mandatory for all male sex offenders. If anyone should be deprived of the right to control their own bodies it should be men convicted of these crimes.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | November 10, 2009, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
Lots of things in this summary above: Clinton told Blue Dogs and others, vote for socialism or lose the election. Odd that that is counter-predictive but we shall see. Oh, and the Obama Ft.Hood speech told us about diversity, told us about war but never uttered the word Islamofascism, terror, or things which the Intel Community missed!!! Oh he did utter, we will give the killer justice. I thought he meant the female soldier who shot Hasan!!! And the Care bill resembles so much of this socialist pacifist Administration. It is too big, too based on keeping Dems in power, and too little based on choice, liberty, free enterprise. BTW, when will there be an investigation of the missed intel by the CIA and FBI?? Do you think the Messiah will order one??? mmmm, mmmm, mmm.
Posted by: Glenn Koons | November 10, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
I hear one thing from Democrats about this bill, and the exact opposite from Republicans. I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong. I don’t know enough about healthcare to make an informed decision on my own. But I do know if this goes through and the quality/cost/availablilty of my own healthcare is impacted in a negative way, I will know who to blame – THE DEMOCRATS.
Posted by: Laura, Collinsville, IL | November 10, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
In my estimation it’s already way too big to pass, besides being too controlling and expensive. As well as redistributing health the way Obama wants to redistribute wealth. It’s ideologically way too far left, and assumes government can run a program that they’ve yet to do successfully. In other words it’s the worst piece of legislation to ever come out of Washington, if it does in fact come out of Washington.
Posted by: Ron Victor | November 10, 2009, 3:54 pm 3:54 pm
Remember when BO PROMISED NOT to sign any Obamacare Bill that was more than 900BILLION!! What happened to that promise??
Posted by: Morphy | November 10, 2009, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
Shoe
Let’s make chemical castration mandatory for all male sex offenders. If anyone should be deprived of the right to control their own bodies it should be men convicted of these crimes.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | Nov 10, 2009 2:23:34 PM
Sounds good to me!! You would think that would get the point across of ZERO tolerance for criminal sexual acts.
But Amy, I noticed you said “if anyone should be deprived of the right to control their own bodies” in the statement above. I still want to make sure you are understanding my point on abortion. I don’t think not providing federal money for abortions deprives a woman of anything. Women have a “right” to control their bodies before pregnancy can occur. They have a right to take birth control pills or other measures. They have a right to tell their partner that he MUST use some type of protection to prevent her from getting pregnant. They have a right to “just say no”. Again, I’m not going to tell anyone what they can or cannot do. That’s their decision. But I want people to think about their choices BEFOREHAND, rather than going ahead with the partner, and worrying about the consequences later. THAT should be the CHOICE.
Thanks for the conversations, Amy. Must be off for now.
Posted by: Shoe | November 10, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
I don’t have health insurance but would never buy an insurance policy from anyone that included abortion. Obama can throw me in prison for the 5 year period Pelosi wants. If only enough Americans will join me, this bill will fail. This bill never made an sense based on logic and economics. Now that the Dems want to directly force me to pay for an abortion health policy, I won’t do it. Prison will be their last step of force.
Posted by: Bill Carson | November 10, 2009, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
Obama said “If you are happy with your current insurance, you can keep it” That is NOT what the house bill says. It says “You SHALL enroll in a Govt approved plan or pay a fine and go to jail” Not fair man! I want those that have no coverage covered somehow, however leave me and my current insurance alone. HSA’a are toast under this plan, again NOT FAIR MAN!!!
Posted by: danceswithtrees | November 10, 2009, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
One benefit of a single-payer healthcare system is that without separate systems for rich and poor women, excluding poor women from reproductive care wouldn’t be so easy. (And when did “not changing the status quo” become “the goal”?)
Posted by: Philip Cohen | November 10, 2009, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm
@cowgirl -
Don’t let facts get in your way.
And it’s not a religious issue. Our understanding of the early stages of life continues to improve and increase with various scientific advancements (3d imaging, most specifically, comes to mind)
Posted by: Alex | November 10, 2009, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
And why shouldn’t the president face disaster on this one?
It is all about government control.
It is not deficit neutral and that terminology is a farce when we have a $1.4 trillion deficit and a national debt nearing $12 trillion and expected to double by 2019. There’s a bumper sticker that says DON”T TELL OBAMA WHAT COMES AFTER A TRILLION.
No one has any plan to do anything about the national debt except to raise it. Obamacare is going to raise it, even with rationing, CER panels, death-spirals and whatever else it contains.
Look at all the bankrupt overrun federal programs and then consider when should we stop the madness?
It might help to read the constitution too!
Posted by: Ed Taylor | November 11, 2009, 12:01 am 12:01 am
Way to go Cowgirl.
Jobs and freedom are pretty important to me and I would guess to most other Americans too. My company spends a fortune on employee health care when its foreign competetors do not have to. Obama would level that one, benefiting all Americans both now insured and not. My Doctor and my hospital get to care for a lot of people who have no coverage now – in many cases its not just a positive moral choice its also a legal requirement (since the public originally paid for a lot of the education, research, and equipment and construction needed for our health care system). People don’t seriously think nobody pays for care for the uninsured, do they? We all do. Finally all of the federal proposals including the one the House just passed as well as all known variations of the one the Senate is about to consider, share two principles: patients still choose providers and patients and their providers still choose treatments. What changes is that everybody gets access to care; the truely well off pay more tax; most businesses and most of the population face more affordable charges; the ‘free riders’ get to pay but also get covered; and their are some first steps towards competetion and cost control. Not bad.
Posted by: john amr werneken | November 11, 2009, 4:22 am 4:22 am