1. Will the 12 million illegal aliens, that comprise 25% of the
uninsured, be covered under any Health Care Plans put forth?
2. Will Congress drop their current plan for this "Government Health Care Option"?
Let Congress lead by example.
Demand your senators and congressmen are covered by the same plan as constituents.
Senator Mikulski (202) 224-4654
Senator Cardin (202) 224-4524
Congressman Kratovil (202) 225-5311
Our representatives are starting to feel the heat. The phones are busy and staffers are defensive in justifying positions.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
32 comments:
I would LOVE to hear their answer for question #2!!!!
These are stupid questions and anyone with half a brain know it. Since when did you become a Healthcare/Drug Company lobbyist?
9:36 They tell us your wisdom and the answer "anybody" knows.
Congressman John Fleming from LA has proposed a bill asking elected representatives to accept the Gov. run health plan and give up their Gov. Employees plan. So far no Democratic takers:( He also expresses a concern about abortion . As the law is so far we taxpayers will pick up the tab for all the abortions. His web site is hard to get to and crashes because he was on the news this AM It seems quite a few of us retarded are beginning to wake up and take note.
9:36 Please explain your reasoning...
Look the only ones sweating are the Redumblicans, the drug companies (cartels) and the current healthcare companies. Healthcare in this country should be and will be a right for the citizens of this country. Logic defies why this has not been law before now. In it's current form the bill will provide affordable healthcare and prescription drug options for all Americans. If you don't want any of the options and want to stay with your current plan you have that right. The sweat of the healthcare industry happens when the new options are priced well below the current outrageous pricing from these healthcare ripoffs. Competition brings the medical and drug companies off the sugar high they've been on for years (arbitrary annual increases of up to 100%). What the Redumblicans are selling is what the drug and medical insurance lobby is feeding them....pure crap. SO if you choose to believe the misinformation...enjoy your crap sandwich.
As far as question #1 goes..the answer SHOULD be no. I still don't get what part of illegal isn't being understood. Isn't it supposed to be that if someone is doing something illegal they go to jail (or deported), not be put into our "system" to support them for life.
12:01,
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment and analysis, but... you get nowhere calling people "Redumblicans". Just sayin'.
11:03,
Nowhere in the plans is there any call for taxpayer funded abortions. Nowhere.
Joe,
Thanks for the numbers. I called all three and told them: "Health care is a right for every American, and there is no reform without a public option". You really do provide a public service, huh? :)
Question #1 should be no but unfortunately it will be yes. Yes, we will be paying for the illegals health care. What more reason do they need to come here? This country is crashing and no one is in control.
Question 1 is yes.
Question 2 absolutely not.
To make matters worse we will all be paying more in taxes. I didn't vote for Obama or Kratovil and never will.
Chuck, not surprised to see you here spreading disinformation. You claim abortions aren't included anywhere in the plan, and that's where they tricked you. Yes, you are 100% for what they say even though they turn their backs on every campaign promise they've ever made that was conservative or made sense in order to get elected. Most judges and insurance companies know that if it is not addressed in any way then it is deemed to be included, which is why health insurance carriers always list their exclusions-so they don't have to cover things they have been made to cover thru past litigation for not excluding it. If this doesn't make sense to you, read it over a couple times but that's the way it is.
3:07,
Oh, okay. So, it's not in the bill, no one's EVER talked about it being in the bill but you've go the inside scoop on the secret conspiracy of "non-inclusion = inclusion"
What are you doing here? You should notify the media immediately!
"Yes, you are 100% for what they say even though they turn their backs on every campaign promise they've ever made that was conservative or made sense in order to get elected."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
go there and show me the ones that he's broken that you think he shouldn't have broken.
Ok Chuck, you sent me an Obama's promises link-he's not the "One" now, he's the "They"-they referes to politicians who say things to get elected like reduce earmarks, no lobbyists, etc and then vote for bills laden with earmarks or better yet sign them into law.
Do you really think I found the exclusions technicality thru my own research -because they've made the bill available to the general public-NOT-or maybe I read it somewhere, like Human Events. Try looking over that site, it's a good read, but be careful, very conservative and the liberal media and talking heads won't want that to convince you of something that makes sense. It's no secret that every insurance carrier has a list of exclusions to their coverage and make sure they have some where in their literature to you.
No thanks. I've been to Human Events MANY times, and they're not much better than WND.
For instance, they're pushing this "non-inclusion = inclusion" conspiracy that you're parroting, here. There exists ZERO evidence for it, yet, for some good old fashioned Conservative Scare Mongering, they're pushing it anyway.
And, of course insurance companies have no-inclusion clauses. They try to find any way possible to NOT pay for services AND not get sued for doing so. Their practices can't be cast on the government, though.
At the end of the day, not ONE politician has asked for abortions to be funded, and no mention of it appears in the bill. You're clutching at straws, and I would suggest that you put down Human Events and start looking for more unbiased news sources.
As for the "one" comment: When did I ever say he NEVER broke any campaign promises? Plus, you never answered my question from before.
Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
Published: July 15, 2009
BOSTON — A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html?_r=1
Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill
By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.
"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907151403dowjonesdjonline000758&title=centrist-dem-leaderhas-committee-votes-to-block-health-bill
JUST A BAD IDEA
Chuck,
You have a very good point,I spent the afternoon on the phone trying to get a claim paid that was denied because of those "exclusions" they concoct to keep from paying out.WTH?
Regardless of our differing opinions on Government Healthcare,I think we all agree something needs to be done.When someone in this country illegally can get care without paying and an American citizen with a job who is paying hundreds of dollars a month for their own insurance has to go into debt for the same care,theres a serious problem.
Health care is not a right.
Hospital emergency rooms never deny care.
Let's make health care a right, then let's have legal care a right too.
It is doubtful that anyone has yet read all 1000 pages of this Non-Health Care Plan so abortion or other hideous surprises have yet to be discovered.
Read on... the transparent administration.
Oh yes, hurry and pass without reading before the public learns what horrors await them.
i heard this week that there is a clause wherein those with private insurance will have to convert to the "public" plan, that their coverage will be cancelled if they don't...in some state, not sure which one.
(I watched O'reily, Hannity & Greta only one night this week, so it was on one of those shows.)
See Chuck, you've got it wrong again with your "non-inclusion=inclusion" the point I was making is that non-EXclusion=inclusion which makes alot of sense. By not excluding elective pregnancy termination, abortion, or other terms used by libs to get around the "killing babies" outright- it is considered included. Otherwise why would there be any litigation over something that was never in the health plan or any contract on any matter to begin with. There has been lawsuit after lawsuit(see the Stella awards about non-exclusion) which is why we have dumb labels on all kinds of products. Obama and most politicians are lawyers, they know what they are doing when they gloss over this. There is a Congressman (probably Republican) who is sending a letter to the President about this very subject and he has some backing.
Okay, 9:16, whatever you say. Conspiracies are all around us! Alert the media!
5:35, No, that's not true. But, if you're only watching Fox, then I'm not surprised that they told you a bald-faced lie. You need to stop watching the Fox Opinion channel.
Chuck...wake up dude, you're drowning in the kool-aid!
Am I? I'm not the one who's hearing 'secret messages' in the health care bill that aren't in there.
Just sayin'
Chuck, the media is aware...
House Republicans say precedent shows courts and administrative agencies assume abortion is included unless explicitly prohibited in the legislation. When Congress remains silent, it allows courts and agencies to, as Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) said in a statement, “mandate abortion.” It happened in the federal Medicaid statute, which required the famous Hyde Amendment to stop federal funding of abortions through Medicaid.
“I am calling upon the President today to step up, clarify his position on whether he wants abortion to be included in his health care reform,” Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) said.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32731
Washington D.C., Jul 14, 2009 / 05:55 pm (CNA).- As Congress prepares to consider President Obama's health care reform this week, the legislation is drawing opposition from both sides of the aisle. At a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, ten lawmakers warned that the current draft of the health care bill will force taxpayers, businesses and insurance providers to pay for abortions.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16559
Chuck, you are apparently willing to be spoon fed your ideas and defend these without reading and finding out for yourself. IN one instance they cornered Mikulski on this issue...but this back and forth really isn't intended for you, it's for those who would believe you actually know what you are talking about.
Here's more of the "secret" messages:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- During a Senate committee meeting on Friday, a leading pro-abortion senator was forced to admit that one of the health care bills pending in the Senate will include abortion coverage. After the admission, the Senate panel voted to include abortions in that version of a national health care plan.
Three pro-life senators used Thursday's Senate HELP Committee meeting to force the leadership's hand on its agenda of including abortion in a public health care plan.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, stammered her way through an explanation of an amendment to the health care bill that would cover abortion.
When pressed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, she admitted that her language would force health insurance companies to contract with abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
Hatch asked, "Would this include abortion providers? I mean, it looks to me like you're expanding it to... for instance, Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?"
"It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's health clinic, it would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics. It would, um, it does not expand in any way expand a service," Mikulski responded. "In other words, it does not expand, um, uh, or mandate abortion service."
Mikulski admitted that the bill "would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate" and pro-life advocates point out the Obama administration could easily declare abortions medically necessary or appropriate.
Later during the hearing, Hatch asked Mikulski if she would be willing to support making the bill abortion neutral in exchange for support for the bill. She would have none of it.
Hatch asked, "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."
She responded, "No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time."
Mikulski's amendment to include abortion coverage in the bill passed by a razor-thin 12-11 margin with Republicans opposing the amendment along with Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat who was the only member of his party to oppose the amendment.
"The way it is written is too broad," Casey said. "The way it is written could be interpreted down the road to include something like abortion."
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5207.html
and a little more just to add fuel to my fire:
By Alex Wayne, CQ Staff Alex Wayne, Cq Staff – Wed Jul 15, 8:06 pm ET
Anti-abortion Republicans are escalating efforts to link Democratic health bills to the divisive and emotional issue.
They contend the bill their chamber will debate this month would lead to more abortions because insurers would be required to pay for the procedure.
The bill (HR 3200), would authorize a new appointed committee to recommend minimum benefits that all health insurers would be required to offer in their plans. Without a prohibition against including abortion among those benefits, the Republicans said, history suggests insurers will be required to cover the procedure.
"This legislation will mandate and subsidize abortion and then tax the Americans who stand for one of the very principles that this nation was founded on -- the right to life," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. He said he will introduce amendments to the bill when the Energy and Commerce Committee considers changes to the measure in sessions that begin Thursday. His amendments would prohibit requiring insurers to cover abortion, except when a mother's life is threatened or when the pregnancy resulted from rape and incest.
Democrats portray the issue differently.
A longstanding provision in the annual spending bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services, named for former Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill. (1975-2007), prohibits Medicaid from paying for abortions. Democrats who support abortion rights have long chafed at the inclusion of the Hyde amendment in the bill, year after year, but have not tried to remove it since taking over Congress for fear of inflaming abortion opponents.
But those Democrats say Republicans are now simply trying to expand the Hyde prohibition to all health care services, and that they won't stand for it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090716/pl_cq_politics/politics3167407
So, you post a link to Human Events and the Catholic News Agency (both of whom are fully invested in opposing abortion at every turn) to bolster your argument that this bill allows the taxpayer to bill for abortions.
Ironically, you actually posted the Hyde Amendment information, but didn't concede that, BY LAW, this bill is constrained by the Hyde Amendment.
Additionally, no one has YET to show me any member of Congress saying that this will fund abortions nor have you shown me any language in the bill that would overturn the Hyde amendment and allow for abortions.
Oh, and 10 Republican lawmakers are pushing this story? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! I can't BELIEVE politicians would stoop so low as to claim a bill does something that isn't written in to it, only to garner political points! Can you feel me rolling my eyes?
And you talk of ME being spoon fed? Okay. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Don't worry, those conspiracy theories will keep you warm, too.
Mikulski said it doesn't cover abortions (according to your own link) and Casey concedes that it doesn't cover abortions.
Do you also believe the federal government was behind 9/11?
Joe believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, and just because a politician won't concede it covers abortion does not mean that they aren't trying to put it in there. The wording is too broad per Casey and a court will decide that if it's not excluded then it's included like so many Stella award winners that defy common sense. This is like arguing with your own echo-which is why if anyone else is following the back and forth with Chuck, please do some research on your own. The politicans, according to Chuck, always have your best interests at heart, never lie, cheat or steal esp. if they're Democrats.
1;14,
yes, please do some research on your own, and show me where in the bill it says that abortions will be publicly funded. In addition, find me a politician who said "let's pay for abortions!"
Oh, you can't? Wow. That sounds like what I said earlier. Good to see that research will lead you right to what I originally said.
No, I've shown you where they're intentionally not excluding abortions. You have yet to show anything. Chuck says find a politician who says, "let's pay for abortions" which is impossible. But, I will give you Obama who called an botched 3rd term abortion baby who was born, was actually crying, a "pre-viable fetus." What Chuck is "pre-viable"? Politicians are mostly lawyers and they know how to use words. Good luck Chuck!
In 2001 and 2002, then-state Senator Obama vigorously opposed a bill which defined very specifically when babies get human rights. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA), both the federal and Illinois versions, conveyed legal personhood to infants who accidentally survived an abortion. As if to answer Pastor Warren’s question long before it was asked, Obama provided the rationale for his position in a 2001 speech on the Illinois Senate floor:
"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a—a child, a nine-month-old—child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11582081/
same speech in Fact Check at the bottom
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
same speech but the whole thing in context
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_obama_vote_to_legalize_late_term_abortions_in_illinois_and_if_the_baby_lived_through_the_abortion_then_obama_said_the_baby_should_be_killed
fetus’ born alive after a botched abortion is a BABY-if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck…hmmm
Post a Comment