What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
356 Comments
- a2wickedd991, on 11/13/2009, -2/+68Cool does that mean I don't have to pay taxes for things I don't agree with? Like war and torture and bailouts and paying the salary of Michelle Bachman? Because if we're starting this new thing where we only have to pay taxes for things we agree with count me the ***** in.
- Verchiel77, on 11/13/2009, -5/+66Yet the Republican National Committee covers elective abortion for its own employees:
http://digg.com/politics/RNC_insurance_plan_covers ...
Shocking, right? - a2wickedd991, on 11/13/2009, -2/+33It's not different at all. You have to choice to not get an abortion, your taxes are just going to help women who need an abortion. Much the same way that I am not forced to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, but my taxes are used to support the war.
- Barryn13087, on 11/13/2009, -11/+38From my understanding the bill provides subsidies for private and public health insurance companies that don't offer abortions as part of basic coverage so its a benefit to them. But barring everyone else who does offer it is pretty bad, a woman has the right to choose what happens to her and not have to worry about high fees involved.
- holysin, on 11/13/2009, -3/+30Therein lays one hell of a slippery slope. As an atheist I don't like my tax dollars going towards faith based education of any shape or creed. As someone who believes abstinence education is complete ***** I don't like my tax dollars going towards abstinence only education. (insert war on drugs, war on this, war on that, capital punishment, Etc, etc, etc.) Sorry but we pay taxes based on our income then the govt decides where to spend the taxes collaected. If you dislike how they spend it vote them out. However giving people the impression they can choose where their tax dollars goes is bat ***** insane.
- cyrusuncc, on 11/13/2009, -8/+34It's going to be difficult to pass a bill when tax dollars would go to something that heated (Pro Life vs Pro Choice). I say don't cover it unless it's medically necessary (to save the life of the mother, etc). That way it's more of a compromise.
- rotundo, on 11/13/2009, -3/+25I don't like abortion, but I am pro-choice. To all the people who are pro-life: what do you plan to do with the millions of children that will be born to mothers that wanted to dispose of them?
I don't want to hear about what is right or wrong with regards to innocence and birth control. What I want to know is given the fact that there are millions of mothers who do in fact get pregnant (even if it's because they're careless) and they want to dispose of their children, what do you want to do about it? Where do the children go? How do you force someone to be a parent?
In fact, that was part of the reasoning behind Roe -- that there is no practical way to force someone to be a parent.
If you think that there's enough adoption room for them, you're wrong. If you think that it doesn't matter if the parents want their child or not, you're wrong. So: what do you want to do? - a2wickedd991, on 11/13/2009, -3/+25Only if by shocking you mean "hypocrisy by the RNC on a completely hilarious level," in which case it is VERY shocking.
- ChuckDees, on 11/13/2009, -3/+22The problem is when a business takes the new tax credit. To offer their employees private insurance.
It will be against the law for the employees who have PRIVATE insurance to have their insurance pay for this.
It will basically ban all private insurance from covering this. - cyrusuncc, on 11/13/2009, -2/+20what about when the mother is has a high risk of death from pregnancy complications?
- str3ama, on 11/13/2009, -1/+18lol abortion for some, miniature american flags for the rest.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/13/2009, -5/+22Is anyone else exhausted with this abortion debate yet?
I get it. People have different ideas about when life begins. Some say it is at conception. I believe it began about 3.5 billion years ago when lighting struck a dense primordial soup and started organizing primitive proteins. The point is that prohibition of something like abortion is a dangerous, costly thing which brings untold suffering and loss of life. That much is for certain. Why don't the anti-abortionists stop calling people murderers and start calling them mothers? Why not try and talk someone out of it rather than recruit the state to hold a gun to their head and force them to have the child?
If you don't like abortion than why not focus your efforts on trying reduce the number of abortions instead of creating a dangerous world with a black market abortion industry that wouldn't help anyone? - govsucks, on 11/13/2009, -5/+20REGULATING interstate commerce gives them the right to force everyone to buy stuff. DUH
/s
At least that the excuse Nancy Pelosi (also known as Skeletor) used. - pintomp3, on 11/13/2009, -0/+15Bingo. It's a roundabout way of reducing access to a legal medical procedure.
- Verchiel77, on 11/13/2009, -3/+17Because the GOP hasn't been crying about this for months, right?
Also:
"Stupak-Pitts"
Joe Pitts (R-PA) - Spuy767, on 11/13/2009, -5/+18I'm pro choice all ***** day long, but did you say, "Not have to worry about the high fees involved." I'm speechless. A woman gets knocked up, which is very preventable by the way, and you say she shouldn't be burdened with the high fees? A surgical abortion is almost invariably less than 1000$. Doesn't seem terribly expensive to me. Now, if you'd made the argument that it should be covered because a pregnancy is an order of magnitude more expensive, you'd have at least had logic on your side, but instead you chose to tug at the heart strings. Fail.
- CamonDraconis, on 11/13/2009, -3/+15I admit to have making mistakes, but I accept the responsibility of my mistake and the consequences.
- Vaiper, on 11/13/2009, -19/+31I'm sick of religious folks pretending like they know what is best for everyone.
- pinchduck, on 11/13/2009, -2/+14President Obama said that his health care reform would not fund abortions. I heard him say it. This amendment upholds that promise. Now "truthout.org" is saying he won't support it if it doesn't fund abortions? Someone is lying.
From Obama's speech on health care reform:
"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10ob ... - depro9, on 11/13/2009, -8/+19This health care bill puts even more power & money into the sick hands of insurance companies.
Universal single payer medicare for all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_c ... - jcpudd, on 11/13/2009, -6/+16Yes, but it is an optional choice. Just like a sex change, nose job, or breast implants it should not be covered. Bottom line it is an elective procedure.
Just for the record, before I get "hey what if the mothers at risk" argument. That is not elective, if the mother will die or be disabled without it, then it absolutely should be covered. - pintomp3, on 11/13/2009, -4/+14Here's a novel idea. If you are against abortions, don't have one.
- ryno35, on 11/13/2009, -13/+23I'm curious where they think they have the constitutional authority to require people to buy insurance. They may think it's a good idea but there is that pesky constitution they swore to uphold.
- valetudomexican, on 11/13/2009, -0/+10Or the amendment could just die in conference.
- dalittle, on 11/13/2009, -0/+10and no funding of viagra.
- Screwy1138, on 11/13/2009, -2/+11The amendment already allows for rape, incest, and health risk to the mother abortions.
- valetudomexican, on 11/13/2009, -3/+12Not true, there were a lot of Dems that voted no after they were assured the bill would pass to protest the amendment.
- 5thdigg, on 11/13/2009, -1/+10I find religion morally wrong, yet it's still tax exempt.
- CamonDraconis, on 11/13/2009, -3/+12BAAWWWWW. Condoms cost 7 bucks for a box of 10.
- thejenigma, on 11/13/2009, -3/+12He's not representing me.
- slvrbullet87, on 11/13/2009, -5/+13Only the rich have the choice to buy a Lamborgini, should the government subsidize poor people who want those?
- mikeymondavi, on 11/13/2009, -5/+13Anything that sinks this bill is good
- thejenigma, on 11/13/2009, -3/+11I'm from Michigan. I wrote Stupak.
If you want to as well, go here:
http://www.house.gov/stupak/IMA/issue2.htm - diggbigwig, on 11/13/2009, -10/+18Abortions (except to save the life of the mother, rape, etc) are elective medical procedures. If they start covering elective procedures then shouldn't they include cosmetic procedures like breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, liposuction, botox, etc?
- skews13, on 11/13/2009, -4/+12If it doesn't pass, and premiums continue to rise to the projected 166% more than they are now, with bankruptcies, and home foreclosures keeping pace in the next year, coupled with higher unemployment rates. The only thing people are going to remember is healthcare reform almost happened in this country, but was halted by anti abortion extremists. I'm sure that's going to sell really well over the next couple of election cycles.
- dalittle, on 11/13/2009, -6/+14so not helping millions of sick Americans to push a personal agenda is to be commended? Not having the balls to instead make your own bill to promote your personal agenda is now great? Stupak is a coward and morally corrupt.
- reaper527, on 11/13/2009, -0/+7pelosi wouldn't allow that to happen. she was against posting the text of the bill to the public 72 hours before a vote. such an action would have had people calling their congressman and killed support for the bill.
to those who think the bill is a good idea, why refuse to let the public read it if there is nothing to hide? - pinchduck, on 11/13/2009, -3/+10Stupak is from Michigan. Geography much?
- QuietusMaximus, on 11/13/2009, -2/+9We pay for lots of things we don't personally care for, that's the nature of taxes and the common good. Personally, I don't like the idea of paying into health care for people who don't care enough about themselves to put down the twinkie and take a walk. Like pregnancy, it's an avoidable expense for the most part, but guess which one costs more in both the short and long term.
- Thuban, on 11/13/2009, -0/+7A politician Lie?????????????? You jest.
- TheUngod, on 11/13/2009, -1/+8The world has a place for idealist, but the government does not. The fact is, women will and do get pregnant and can't afford an abortion. If they can't afford an abortion, they CERTAINLY can't afford to raise a child.
- redperspective, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7I'm sick of everyone pretending like they know what is best for everyone else.
- heliumflash, on 11/13/2009, -3/+9Ironically, this will probably mean that the price of abortions will actually lower since insurance companies won't be paying for it and there will be competition, therefore they will be more available and used.
- CamonDraconis, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7And that is my fault and justifies that I should have to pay for their mistake how?
- Screwy1138, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7Yeah that's what bugs me about people on the bandwagon for this bill. They no longer care what's in it, they just like it because it's a health care reform bill. Which doesn't reform very much, including no tort reform.
- diggbigwig, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6If it doesn't pass, Obama will be blamed for it (right or wrong).
- Pippers, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6Taxes already pay for this for people who are on disability and are covered by the government. So either way, peoples tax dollars are paying for it whether they want it to or not.
- pintomp3, on 11/13/2009, -2/+8There are plenty of people who have religious objections against blood transfusions. Can we block those from being paid with public and private dollars too?
- Spuy767, on 11/13/2009, -3/+9How much do you think abortions cost?
- heliumflash, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6You have it mixed up. Insurance companies TAKE AWAY competition. Notice how operations that aren't covered by insurance have dropped in price over the years (laser eye surgery for example, which has steadily gotten cheaper AND better at the same time), while operations that are covered by insurance (chemotherapy for example) have either stayed the same price or gotten more expensive? It is because people don't shop around for the cheapest price because they don't have to worry about it since their insurance company will pay for it.
Now, if people want an abortion, they will be forced to shop around for a cheap clinic. Abortion clinics will have to compete over customers, resulting in cheaper prices all around and better service all around. -
Show 51 - 100 of 365 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is