Brain-dead Dimocrats keep saying that national health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky are always on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.
Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)
On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.
On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.
If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?
Gee, I don't know ham, maybe they are just trying to piss you off.
If you aren't going to believe them no matter what they do anyway, how much effort should they put into winning your confidence?
Obama: President Barack Obama Wednesday demanded Congress act now on health reform, warning more Americans would die if Washington again does nothing to expand care and cut the costs of insurance.
Obama (same speech): Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics.
What a dumbass
scare tactics.... Thats something new!! Except this time yeah, people really will die. Maybe none related or important to you..
I think Obama is on pretty solid ground predicting that some of the 47 million uninsured might be in danger of death without medical attention. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch. (Asthma, a relatively mild disease compared to others, can kill if left untreated, for example)
And while it may be scary, it is grounded in hard reality, unlike some of the scare tactics he referred to, such as Death Panels, and so on, which are grounded in fiction.
at least they die free and not caught up in red tape to be told that they are not worth the healthcare because of "x" problem. "X" could be old, rich, white, did not donate to them, etc.
not that the 47 million number is BS. More like 25-30 millions. So shoving let say 35 million into the system without increasing the amount of doctors/nurses/space/admin people ain't the brightest of ideas. This people having a free ride will swamp the system. People get a free ride rarely take care of it, since they did not work their butt off to earn it.
Someone pointed out that the laser eye clinics use to cost $3500 back in the early days and insurance does not cover that service, so why do they charge $700-900 eye these days if medical costs are rising? Well insurance does not pay for it, government has a limited role in shoving red tape up their butts, and there are plenty of choices of who you want to use. Free market mostly at work here and if you have a chance to shop around for insurance and medical work, than I bet costs would drop. Not that Tort and forcing insurance company to compete would still be a great idea!
Yeah, I wonder who's butt they pulled the 47 million number out of, who knows what the real number is?
I also prefer the free market to red tape and I agree that malpractice reform should be part of the whole package.
It is a big problem and a lot of things will have to change to get it resolved.
Just one nit to pick with your assumption that all 35 (or 47) million would be getting free government care. That is in essence what happens now when someone is in a car crash or gets cancer, etc.
If I understand the program right, as many of those millions will be funneled into regular insurance as possible. The public option, if it is even in the final plan, would only be for those who can't get, don't qualify for (pre-existing conditions, etc) or can't afford regular free market insurance.
I do worry about all those extra people being covered by the same number of hospitals and medical professionals, and that might a new problem, but the larger issue is that we have a free market system in place with diagnostics, surgical methods, the best drug treatments that have ever existed, and so on to treat sick people, but so far have lacked a payment system that covers everyone who needs it. At it's heart, this is a free market, capitalistic system. It just needs to cover more people.
where they going to get this magical money or room to handle the increase load without causing days or week waiting periods?
hammers
If healthcare reform is so urgent, why will it not take effect until after the next Presidential election?????????