Home > Congress, Religion, US Politics > When did America elect Rep Stupid (D/R Vatican) President?

When did America elect Rep Stupid (D/R Vatican) President?

Not their right to decide

Not their right to decide

The Senate’s healthcare bill would lose 12 Democratic votes in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.

Stupak, the sponsor of an amendment to the House healthcare bill that barred federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, said that 12 lawmakers who had previously supported healthcare reform legislation in the House would be ready to switch.

“It’s accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it,” Stupak said during an appearance on MSNBC.

Stupak and other Democrats who oppose abortion have threatened to fell the healthcare effort before Congress over the issue of abortion. They say the Senate’s provision, which had been demanded by centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), does not go far enough in preventing federal money from going to support abortion.


As far as I am concerned men have nothing to say about abortions. All men do is contribute about 5-10 ml of body fluid at the end of bedroom fumble and, if lucky, money afterwards.

Someone please tell him, abortion is legal in America, it was decided by Roe v Wade. It is accepted as part of the Democratic Party platform. It is settled Party policy.

Abortion is not financed by either the Senate bill or the House bill. The Hyde amendment which already addresses his concerns, there is absolutely no need to pander to the small boys club aka the Catholic Church at the expense of women. Many of whom vote for the Democratic Party because they do not want decisions about their uterus made by the Government.

The ironic thing is that the only way he can orchestrate his government take over of the health care of women is because, to a man, the Republicans will vote with him.

A signature piece of legislation, that should have passed 6 months ago, being held up, again, because one idiot thinks a bunch of cells in the womb of a woman is more important than the life of a mother unable to get cancer treatment because she has reached her annual insurance limit.


Categories: Congress, Religion, US Politics
  1. David
    March 4, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    The law does not mean that the federal government has to fund someone’s abortion. Cigarettes are legal in this country, and the government does not buy them for smokers.

    And yet, you are wrong. Once a soul is created via sexual intercourse, it’s really God’s decision to bring it into the world or not. That a woman can decide against God is proof of God’s love, but it’s really not her decision.

    • thebigotbasher
      March 4, 2010 at 8:27 pm

      Agreed and the proposed legislation does no such thing, that is why the Hyde amendment already exists. Health care reform should not however restrict someone from insuring against an already legal procedure or get to the point where women have to write two stupid payments out.

      • David
        March 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm

        The legislation being proposed approves of federal funding of abortion, and thus, supercedes the Hyde Amendment. As for what she has to do to obtain this immoral procedure, it’s not that important. The life inside her is much more important.

        • thebigotbasher
          March 4, 2010 at 11:14 pm

          How does it provide federal funding for abortion? The Nelson amendment makes clear that there will be no abortion funding.

          I guess that you think that because there are insurance subsidies if insurance covers abortion that means there will be federal funding? That (I think wrongly) is expressly excluded, women have to buy separate abortion funding. Hence two payments.

          • David
            March 5, 2010 at 12:10 am

            Have you read the bill?

            • David
              March 5, 2010 at 12:12 am

              Pressed send too soon. If abortion is not to be funded by the health care bill, what is the problem with including language in the bill to prohibit it? Abortion is covered because it is not excluded under the Senate version of the bill.

              • thebigotbasher
                March 5, 2010 at 1:12 am

                It is excluded under the Senate bill, including the Obama compromise bill.

                The Stupak amendment goes much further than Hyde legislates. No insurance company in the exchange would be able to offer abortion coverage AT ALL. Individual subsidy or not. This is completely wrong and an unreasonable restriction on the rights of women already secured by Roe v Wade. Nelson/Hatch excludes abortion from subsidies, in line with Hyde. Although defeated by the Senate it was picked up in the managers amendment to ensure the vote of Nelson. It is in the Obama compromise. Stupak wants his amendment and nothing else.

              • thebigotbasher
                March 5, 2010 at 2:38 am

                In addition, I would also like to ask how is it pro life to stop a bill ending annual and life time caps on insurance? How is it pro-life to deny a cancer stricken mother health care coverage because she has reached some arbitrary limit on insurance?

            • thebigotbasher
              March 5, 2010 at 1:39 am

              The summary provisions, of course which bill do you mean?

              Have you read the bill?

        • thebigotbasher
          March 5, 2010 at 12:34 am

          How important is that life to you once outside the womb? What support structures should the Government provide to the poor, single parents, homeless mothers?

          Do you agree with capital punishment?

    • thebigotbasher
      March 4, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      As for a woman choosing to have a medical procedure, that his her choice and hers alone, not the choice of some adult version of Father Christmas.

      • David
        March 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm

        She’ll find out, soon enough, who’s choice (and what choice) she made…

  2. David
    March 5, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    It’s not expressly excluded. That provision was asked for, but ultimately not included. I’ve read summaries, and portions. The fact that the insurance companies would not be able to offer abortion at all does nothing to the woman’s ability to procure it. Makes it more expensive, but if it’s too expensive, maybe she would consider not having sex in the first place (which is where it all starts).
    Look, I believe we need health care reform, totally. But most of the time, abortion is not health care. The fact that abortion is not expressly prohibited means that the entire bill is tainted. Expressly prohibit aborfion, and you’ll have a lot more that sign on to it. Even though I know that Government cannot do an efficient job of running it, I could accept that, if everyone was covered. By the way, the new bill still does not cover everyone. Also, the bill should only cover those who cannot get or cannot afford healthcare.
    How pro-life am I? Very pro-innocent-life. Not only do I pay taxes for the benefit of the poor (and not so poor, and lazy), I volunteer feeding the homeless on a regular basis and donate to pay for the expenses of such. I think private industry/private concerns could take care of the problem better and more efficiently than government. I believe captial punishment is necessary in some cases, especially for the unrepentant criminal.

    • thebigotbasher
      March 5, 2010 at 9:25 pm

      Firstly thank you for being polite and non shouty about this issue.

      It is an issue where loonies on both sides go blaagh shoot themselves in the foot and run round thinking the World will end on the day that this is passed. Whether it is loony PUMAs from the left to nutty Congress men on the right, the issue has been over exaggerated.

      The abortion issue for this health care is related to the subsidies that those on low incomes will be given to enable them to buy health insurance. There are no new grants, no new abortion drop in centres, no plans to replace abortion clinics with coat hangers. The issue is simply about the individual insurance subsidy and the “exchange”.

      You got me to do a lot of reading around on this, I wanted to get clear again about what was going in to the bill regarding abortion.

      The Nelson – Hatch amendment on the Senate bill, which is in the Presidents’ proposal allows insurance plans operating in the exchange to cover abortion, but no subsidy would be payable for that, consumers would have to write two checks to their insurance plan, one for the regular premium, the other for abortion coverage.

      The Stupak amendment bans health insurance that covers abortion from the exchange completely. It says that any health plan that receives any funds under health care reform can not cover abortion. Even if the consumer is using the exchange as a way of getting lower premiums and NO subsidy is payable by the Government. You can buy off the exchange, but then, should your income fall you are not entitled to any subsidy.

      To me it is simple. In terms of the individual subsidy, Hyde stops it being covered. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, she pays for it. Making it “more not covered” is simply creating an issue that will worry people unnecessarily. Stupak effectively removes rights women have already because most individual insurance will end up going through the exchange.

      At the end of the day – there are no abortion incentives or subsidies or anything else in the health insurance reform bill. Nelson made sure of that, I think unnecessarily. No subsidy is possible. The Stupak amendment on this is extreme and as far as I see he is using this legislation to end abortions for a lot of women or he will kill the bill.

  3. David
    March 5, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    You’re welcome, and thank you, too. The issue is not about ‘more not covered’. The problem is that they say “Let’s just get something in, and we can fix it once it’s in.” With the current administration, it seems likely to me and to many others that they could put blanket abortion coverage in as a ‘fix’.

    Personally, regarding abortion, I think we need to work at changing people’s hearts, rather than legislation. It should start with teaching children that sex outside of marriage is not OK. If non-married sex was less prevalent, there would be fewer people with unwanted pregnancies. It’s also about showing people the value of humanity.

    You’re right about the loonies on both sides-throwing molotov cocktails, burning buildings or killing abortion doctors is really very bad for the cause…

    • thebigotbasher
      March 6, 2010 at 12:00 am

      The Nelson amendment is already in the Senate bill – they had to add it as part of the managers amendment otherwise Nelson would have vetoed it. It does not need to be added.

      My view on abortions is that they should be safe, legal but rare. I don’t agree with you on sex outside of marriage, the silver ring thing is not going to happen. Not unless you want a Christian Taliban. Knowledge of contraception is a good start and the porn industry (it will also always be there) needs to learn a lesson from gay porn. Condoms on.

    • thebigotbasher
      March 6, 2010 at 12:22 am

      As for this administration putting blanket abortion coverage in the bill via reconciliation, Obama is discouraging Senators from putting the public option in (which would give an immediate boost to health care reform support). Obama is a very moderate Democrat. He only looked left wing because Hillary Clinton decided to run a Republican campaign during the primaries. the supporters she garnered (“hard working white Americans”) then made her appear like Ann Coulter (see here and here). Clinton may have been a lefty but some of her supporters were positively crazy.

      The plan going through Congress now is the Ginrich plan from the 1990s.

      With the lobbying ability of the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance industry and medical industry as a whole, you will never see full single payer health care in the US. I believe that is wrong, however this appears to be a reasonable compromise, you reduce the cost burden on individuals by extending the coverage pool by implementing a mandate and provide subsidies to cover those who can not afford insurance.

      While those on the left may decry not having a public option, the insurance option available to Government workers is in there as a non profit option. there are issues with non profits though, the profits are supposed to be re-invested in to the company, but there is nothing to stop the Directors voting themselves ever larger cars, pensions and salaries.

      I will tell you why a public option would have been useful. There is a mixed market in the UK. A fully comprehensive national health service, with no fees (except if working there are dental fees) and a vibrant private insurance market. Full private comprehensive insurance for a family of 4, with private rooms, few (or no) co-pays (excess charges), can cost £70 ($100) a month. Of course you still have to pay your 9% national insurance which covers unemployment, pension and nhs even if you have private coverage.

    • March 7, 2010 at 4:07 pm

      I just want to add you may be interested to know all Romneycare insurance packages cover abortions, there is nothing like the Nelson or Stupak amendment.


  4. David
    March 8, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    Not in favor of Romneycare either, or Romney, for that matter. I just think that Government always finds a way to screw up their programs. Look at Social Security, Welfare, the Postal Service (I know, not government anymore), and government in general. They think they know how to make our decisions better than we do, but they don’t.

  5. David
    March 8, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Also, as I said, I believe the healthcare system needs reform. Just not from the government. Start with tort reform and coverage for those who can’t get insured, whether for economic or medical reasons. As for that last, make sure they truly can’t afford it, as opposed to not wanting it until it’s too late. I’ll tell you, I didn’t have health insurance for 13 years of my 22 years of marriage. Paid for it once with an infection, and had to pay for the care I received. When I had a job that offered it, though, I was grateful.
    By the way, did you know that most Catholic dioceses have programs to help people who have no health insurance, regardless of their religion? It’s true. Also, no hospital can turn away a patient that shows up in the emergency room for lack of ability to pay. Granted, not the best system, but it’s there in place.

    • March 8, 2010 at 7:39 pm

      Start with tort reform and coverage for those who can’t get insured, whether for economic or medical reasons.

      With the exception of tort reform, which will not do much for costs or extending coverage, you have the bill. Tort reform is however being accepted as an amendment. So your suggestion is what Congress has before it. It is insurance reform, not health reform. There is no big Government programme. The reform provides for minimum standards of coverage, stops people being banned from insurance for pre-existing conditions and provides a subsidy to buy insurance to those who can not afford it.

      The reason why health care costs are so high in the States is because uninsured people have to use the emergency room as a Doctor.

      This is a useful tool


  6. David
    March 8, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Tort reform would take the legal system out of the insurance system, except where needed.

    If there’s no big gov program, why is it going to cost trillions? And why are they planning to tax now and implement later? You say minimum standards of coverage, well, you can give everyone basic coverage, which includes doctor’s visits and medication, for $60 billion – 100 billion a year. To every person in the US. Include hospitalization, and it would multiply to about $500 billion. So why is this thing so expensive?

    • March 8, 2010 at 9:24 pm

      It will not cost $trillions. It will cost around $100bn a year to provide subsidies for an estimated extra 30 million of Americans who can not now afford health care coverage. It will cost nearly $1 trillion over 10 years but that seems to be a very bad way of costing a programme.

      I agree that a decent single payer system would be nearly as cheap to provide as this, but HR676 never left the House, that would have extended medicare to cover all American adults, with children covered by SCHIP.

      The costs are also increased because they finally put in the budget the medicare prescription benefit passed by President GW Bush, which was left as an unfunded entitlement. The donut whole is also reduced.

      There are also no giant tax increases to pay for it. There is a tax on caddilac insurance plans.

      The details you can find here


  7. David
    March 8, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    You realize that most of what the insurance companies pay to doctors pays for their malpractice insurance??

  8. David
    March 8, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Half of a doctor’s income pays his malpractice insurance. But if you are mistreated or misdiagnosed by a doctor, his income would be limited by word of mouth and reputation. If you tell your insurance company that the doctor treated you wrong, that doctor will get dropped. Most doctors care about their reputation.

    • March 8, 2010 at 10:31 pm

      That of course does not do you much good if you are seriously injured as a result of negligent practice.

      Tort reform was a Democratic proposal a good while back, but opposed by the Republicans. If the Democrats were to either include it in the revised bill or propose a tort reform bill the Republicans would still oppose it. Indeed there are valid reasons to oppose it, at least on a Federal basis, the Courts should not be restricted from their assessment of negligence by the Legislature.

      I think malpractice insurance should be paid by the facility and not the Dr, which would ensure any facility had tight procedures, however that just deals with a tiny part of the overall health care problems facing the US.

  9. David
    March 8, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    It’s hard to believe anything the government says. They tell you that Social Security is a good program, yet it was designed originally that the average person would never get it because they would be dead by the time they were eligible. And that’s still the way it operates.

    The United States of America was founded with the idea of limited government in all spheres, except where necessary. Defense, infrastructure, communications. It has grown from that to a huge safety net. Some safety is a good thing, this is not.

    • March 8, 2010 at 11:24 pm

      Military expenditure in the US is one giant super-welfare / make work initiative. As evidenced by Sen. Shelby who held up all appointees because he wanted a Eurpean contractor to be awarded a contract that the US DofD did not want.

      This was also evidenced in the 2009 budget, where a majority of Senators voted to add on a budget increase for a plane that the DofD did not want.

      Social Security is a good program, it is still well funded, still in surplus despite what some politicians say and is highly popular.

      My main issue with the Republicans is that they have been awful at administering Government and they have been pretty good at spinning it – don’t blame them blame government per-se.

      As for limited government, the preamble would imply that there is a duty to look after the welfare of the people.

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  10. David
    March 9, 2010 at 12:28 am

    Defense is a make-work initiative? I guess you believe the same to be said for police and fire-fighters? Just because some senators foist something unwanted on the military, or use it as an excuse to get money for their state does not make what you claim to be true.

    Social Security would be a good program if it took my money, made a modest profit with it, and gave it back to me. I’m pretty certain I won’t see much of it.

    Republicans and Democrats have been pretty bad at running things. The last good president was the first one in the 80’s.

    What do you think “promote the general welfare” means? It means to work for a common good. What’s that? Certainly not taking our hard-earned money and redistributing it. Our government, from the top down, is too fat. When less than a quarter of every dollar of the welfare budget actually gets to those who need it, that’s too fat. I don’t object to helping people out of misfortune, but come on!

    • March 9, 2010 at 1:20 am

      No but firefighters, the police and the army are all examples of good Government programs that work.

      I can find no figures to justify that only 25% of money spent on welfare programs gets to the recipients – if that is the case, that is not a problem of Government (UK admin costs are less than 1%), that is a problem of the people running government.

      I think people have a rose tinted view of Ronald Reagan and the man that paid the political price for that was George HW Bush.

      If we are going to move on to military matters/Reagan etc – post here


      keep things tidy

  11. David
    March 9, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Just so you know, I think, by the time one has reached the top tiers of government, one has compromised one’s principles enough times that it’s easy to sway. Reagan was no exception, but he had less time in government, and little wiggleroom in his policies. He was part of the trinity that broke down the Soviet Union. He took mortgage interest rates and unemployment rates way down. He was a no-nonsense guy, and even on things I don’t agree with him on, he had a good reason.

    No, I’m pretty much anti-government. I know that one thing the national government must do is protect the nation. They do that, pretty well. Government just has to understand that the sources of their income and resources come from the people.

    • March 9, 2010 at 12:44 pm

      There is no such thing as Government money, it is taxpayers money. Agreed.

      The battle of ideas in the 80s was won by the Conservative right, there is no getting away from that. The public did believe that Government was too large, taxes were too high and that the West was sinking.

      Stagflation was a problem that could not be solved by Keynesian economics..

      The cold war appeared to be increasingly hot. The US had no understanding at all of the Middle East..

      Thatcher and Reagan won the battle of ideas by promising to role back the State.

      The back of stagflation was broken by 1981/82. Life was a pile of crap if you were poor under Reagan but if you had managed to jump any any rung of the ladder during that time the ride up certainly felt exhilarating. The cities, especially the early start of the stock boom were exploding.

      Against that back drop, there was the ever growing build up of the military and promises of nuclear missile reduction from the US and Soviet Union.

      The fear of communism was a useful sales tool. Great for Middle America.

      You could have run Jesus Christ as the Democratic candidate. Of course you had the dirty tactics (Willie Horton) but that just pushed the numbers way beyond massive loss to wipe out.

      George H Bush walked in on the back of the “success” of Reagan. Relatively low inflation, a booming economy for a lot of people (people forgot about the unemployed), lower taxes (people believed tehy were lower even though they got raised) and a reborn American pride.

      The break up of the Soviet Union, Tiananmen Square, the fall of the Berlin wall, all helped to secure in the mind that the ideas of the right had won.

      GH Bush wanted to control the deficit and walked back on no new taxes. That became unforgivable. Then as with a bad relationship the bad things previously ignored during the good days became issues. Unemployment. The poor. Health care. There is a saying in politics. The opposition does not win elections, the government loses them. GH Bush confirmed that.

      HW Bush and Clinton however ushered in a period of management politics. In the UK reflected by Major, Blair and even Brown. There was no driving ideology, it was about the management of the economy. Everything else could fall in to place. This was ruined by the Neo-Cons, but it is something that the Western economies are returning to.

      The language is harsher now in the political world because the differences are smaller. There are no new great economic ideas.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: