Stupak amendment won't cover miscarriagesFollow

2 million = 152 million.

He's only off by a factor of 76! Easy mistake to make. That's like saying the distance from the earth to the moon is roughly the same distance as Seattle, WA to Orlando, FL.



Edited, Nov 10th 2009 8:43pm by bsphil

Sure. It's kinda relevant to see what folks considered to be part of the "public option" back before the other side pulled a bait and switch. Don't you agree?



Not sure what that quote is supposed to mean. The whole list of 16 items are reasons to oppose a "public option health plan". Sure. One part of the public option includes the government actually setting up shop as a health care provider, but that is not in any way at all the entirety of the issue. The list I quoted clearly discusses things which are not directly related to that aspect of the issue at all, so clearly those opposed to a public option plan oppose more than just the one thing you and your guys are now claiming is the "public option".


You do recall that the public option got so much bad press that the Dems pulled it, only to rename what they were doing as something else, right? I even pointed this out several months ago when Obama started talking about setting up a health care exchange, that this was still a public option. My side has been pretty consistent about what we're opposed to. It's your side which keeps trying to finagle the language to wiggle through with what it wants while avoiding public backlash.


Semantics aside, it's the subsidized aspect of the health care issue that is the most dangerous anyway. The government being a direct competitor in the industry just makes it worse, but only because it hastens the process. It's the government picking up the tab at taxpayer expense which is the real danger. Do you recall I also made a post talking about the problems they had in Hawaii when they instituted a similar program? They figured they'd provide funding for health care just for those in great need. What happened was that a whole bunch of people dropped their health care so they could qualify for the program, swamping it with many times more demand for service than they originally accounted for.


What was a silly mistake in Hawaii is essentially the objective of the current plan. They know that if an individual is given an option of paying for health care out of their pocket or having the government pay for them, they pick the latter if they can (the "public option" if you will). Now, they put in place fines and whatnot, but they're irrelevant. The costs for the fines for most people is less than the cost of insurance.

Imagine what would happen if the government tomorrow made it legal to shoplift. The only penalty is that if you are caught, you pay a fine equal to 70% of the cost of the item you stole. Would anyone actually buy anything in the stores anymore? Of course not! And even if the government put in place the best shoplifter catching technology in the world, and managed to get every single person to pay that fine for the stuff they stole, everyone would still just walk out of the store, up to the government fine officer and pay the 70% instead, right?


That's the "public option" at play here. It's the "option" to choose to go through the government for your health care in some way instead of paying for it directly. Everyone knows what will happen. And the effect on private health care would be identical to the effect on private retail businesses in the analogy I just wrote. They would fail. Presumably to be replaced with a government store selling government goods. Cheap, but not much choice and no one else to compete with it, so the consumer kinda doesn't have any say anymore...


Another amusing aspect to all of this is the same folks who will rail and scream about this sort of technique when it's used by Walmart, jump up and down for joy when it's used by their government (using their tax dollars to pay for it no less!). I just don't get it.

Edited, Nov 10th 2009 7:18pm by gbaji

Gbaji, you plainly said that the exchange was the public option. You obviously thought that the public option and the exchange were the same thing. They're not. The government site I linked to said they're not. Your blog differentiates between them. They're just not the same animal.

Based on this ignorance, you said that if people were not going to be insured for abortions, this must be proof that everyone's getting forced to the public option and they can't keep their own health plans. Again, this was just plain wrong since private health plans would make up the vast majority of the exchange (since there's only one public option and co-ops would be minimal at best). Frankly, you just didn't know what you were talking about. I mean, it's cool -- I misspoke about the amendment details before. You know, you say "oops", console your ego by saying it's a common mistake (it was in both instances) and move on with life better informed.

Now, feel free to keep typing a bajillion words to try to spin your way out of it but they are two distinct entities and you obviously didn't know this. But, hey, yeah, semantics and word games and all that jazz. All a big smoke & mirros scheme. Go for it.

And you have proof right? Some website or book that can prove millions of back ally abortions before RoeVWade?

Where did I say that abortions didn't happen before RoeVWade? I do dispute Millions of Back alley abortions with a coat hanger though.

Maybe you should actually read someone's whole post before posting your obviously well thought out arguments like "Your Stupid"

It's OK though I know you went to public Schools so I will cut you a little slack. A little

Do you seriously think women and girls didn't have abortions prior to 1973? I can assure you, they did, and they had them from practitioners who were not necessarily qualified or competent.

Hard data is scarce, since it was illegal. Women and girls who died as a result of botched abortions were listed as having died of uterine hemorrhage, bowel perforation, peritonitis, septicemia, etc.

I suppose it would be possible to see how the frequency of those causes of death compare to forty years ago, but so much has changed in the mean time in terms of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment the numbers would probably be meaningless.

everyone knows gays are the stupid.

I mean, common, what kind of a dunce would think that ***** goes in the pooper?

I love how you just stop the thought right there. "It's fewer abortions guys! Doesn't that sound great???" It sure does. Fewer abortions will also mean more pregnancies. Which really doesn't necessarily sound that great to me. See how this works? The real world is a complex, scary place - but we can make it through together!!



How much sex do you have? Fuck, I'm not getting any and I know the ideas behind this statement are nonsense. If a woman wants to have sex while fully aware that neither she nor her partner have a condom, she's going to do it. She must certainly will not sit there and say "Oh my, Roe v. Wade was overturned last year (Ed note - this is just an example of a situation in which a woman could no longer have an abortion, insert whatever you like here, gbaji)! I better go buy a valu-pak. Brb honey!!!"



I bet opponents of abortion would never do that. I mean, they're so moral and everything.

Edited, Nov 10th 2009 10:55pm by CBD

I'm imagining a world where gay men are required to have their assholes converted into vaginas, and it is terrifying.

silly filter

Edited, Nov 10th 2009 10:00pm by Bardalicious

A lot of people think that women who have abortions only do so because they don't use birth control. Birth control, ALL of it, is not 100% effective. I was on the pill both times I got pregnant with my sons. I was trying to be responsible, since I knew I didn't want a child. But guess what, it didn't quite work out that way. Plenty of women are trying to be responsible. And when the pill, the condom, the IUD fails, they do the next (and almost always, heartbreaking) thing: they abort because they know they have no business with a kid at that point in their life.

It'd be more of a strap-in than a strap-on.


that's why I dislike the filter so much, it sparks ambiguity by censoring all words the same =(

honey, I -AM- The Gay Agenda.