Comments on: 19 Democrats Draw Line In the Sand Against Reproductive Health Coverage, But Mum On Public Plan

By: esseff44

esseff44 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:37:02 +0000

Bobby Bright is a Blue Dog who has voted with the Repugs on just about every vote. He is unlikely to vote for any spending on a health bill with or without reproductive health.

By: Larue

Larue — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:14:05 +0000

So that’s old school anti abortion and anti reproductive rights and anti conception.

What’s new? Catholics didn’t disappear, but they ARE sometimes folded in with the psychotic right wing nut loons.

And I apologize for disparaging loons in general, as they are lovely and wonderous birds.

The others, not so much. ‘Kin loons. Batshit crazy, too, them loons. Rabid at de mouf . . . grrrrr . . . .

By: Larue

Larue — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:11:04 +0000

It’s time to hit Pelosi hard, any way we can.

She’s GOT to get some pressure on ANY DEM that wanders and strays to pugly turf.

This is intolerable, these 19 Dems. Not in MY party, dammit.

Not In My Party!

Besides calling and emailing Pelosi, who ELSE do we jump all over to force these, these, neanderthals, into the 21st Century and in support of their constituents? I don’t BUY their constituents are anti womans rights. I just don’t buy it. Suppressed voices, maybe, but not anti.

Time to bring the meteor to these dino’s!!!! We are the meteor. *G*

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:02:59 +0000

Odd how those 19 Dems won’t vote for a public option that includes reproductive care, but their Congresscritter taxpayer-funded plans include it.

What with all those little blue pills (and the odd un/planned pregnancy) even McCain’s fat wallet would take a hit if he had to pay for them himself. Those 19 just can’t deal with the notion that they aren’t unique, which makes them Villagers.

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:19:25 +0000

I notice most of them are men.
Can we make sure that they don’t get their blue pills, since those are also ‘reproductive health care’?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:14:18 +0000

I suppose I should also add that families which don’t require a subsidy, but who also are concerned about insurance coverage could be offered a public option with the features which suits their needs. I don’t think that would be difficult to arrange.

How the funding of a group is utilized will naturally come into the discussion at that point.

What I mean is, does ALL money coming into public option plans stay together or get segmented by plan? If you have segmentation, so that each plan is entirely separate, then you might not achieve quite the same savings in the non-abortion plan(s) because the numbers of policies/people-covered could be lower.

That would be sort out could be very hard to guess ahead of time. What would people gravitate toward and would this or that group be okay with a single pool of money or would they prefer segmentation?

I think it’s doable, but a little complicated.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:55:33 +0000

Just curious, does Medicaid money go toward abortions now?

If not, then it’s no problem to accomodate those people. The public option (in the legislation being considered) is based entirely on premiums paid by the public — not gov’t. The only gov’t monies involved would be subsidies through Medicaid, so if the law regarding that money doesn’t allow abortions…

If they want to alter that part of Medicaid, then they might be able to do that. They should certainly look into it and do a whip count to see where they stand wrt that.

By: laurenc

laurenc — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:19:43 +0000

This is the ongoing slow drip drip drip that happens when candidates like Clinton and Obama say they want abortion to be rare. Why??

The logical assumption is that it’s a “tragedy”. Not for the women who have the right to determine the course of their lives just like men do.

Not for the countless unwanted children who are now abused and abandoned because abortion is b-a-a-d…even Obama wants there to be less of it.

Why? “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament (poster from the Seventies.”

By: Winski

Winski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:13:21 +0000

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE JACKASSES???? These 19 folks CANNOT be allowed based on their beliefs in fairy tales to stonewall health care for 300 million-plus folks!! They just can’t !!!

By: drfatman

drfatman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:10:50 +0000

I have just a few words for these 19 ‘Dem Reps’ – GO FUCK YOURSELVES! But I digress – we need to stay focused on what Jane has formulated and drive to 40+. I also ask everyone here to read Chris Bowers rationale for ‘THE PROGRESSIVE BLOCK’. We in the Progressive Community have a perfect opportunity to create ‘real change’.

Let’s recapture the feeling we all had when we collectively spoke these words: YES WE CAN!