Headline number 1: "ObamaCare Scorecard..." UNINTELLIGIBLE
Post number 2: "Univ. of Chicago..." A summary but no link to the content. Did you read the rest of the story, Slobbrin? Why don't you want others to read it? Why is the "summary" good enough.
I see the State of Texas hasn't chopped your benefits. But wait until Patrick is elected. You'll be back at the shelter.
ahem ... Please make sense of this gibberish.
- Yssup Rider
- 09-17-2014, 12:23 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 09-17-2014, 12:26 AM
You really must be starved for attention, Slobbrin.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 09-18-2014, 10:36 PM
Pro-Life Leaders Furious over Obamacare Abortion Funds
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...bortion-Funds/
CBNNews.com
Thursday, September 18, 2014
WASHINGTON -- Outraged lawmakers and pro-life leaders gathered outside the U.S. Capitol building Thursday to demand Congress put an end to Obamacare's massive funding of health care plans that pay for abortions
They pointed out past laws specifically forbid this, but Obamacare is ignoring that legislation and the president's own promises that no taxpayer dollars would subsidize abortion.
The speakers at the Capitol Hill news conference were reacting to a new Government Accountability Office report showing massive federal funding of abortion is allowed for under the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare.
"One thousand-thirty six plans cover elective abortions and are subsidized by taxpayer funds," Arina Grossu, with the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity, said.
"You not only can't keep your doctor, you also can't avoid supporting abortion if you're a taxpayer in this country given Obamacare," Ovide LaMontagne, general counsel of Americans United for Life, said.
The Hyde Amendment passed by Congress in 1977 has made it illegal for taxpayer money to pay for abortion. President Obama also pledged during negotiations over the Affordable Care Act that would continue.
Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said the opposite has happened.
"Obama promised up and down, right and left, that abortion would not be covered in the health care law, and that Americans could be assured on his promise that the Hyde protections that we've known since the 1970s would still be covered in the health care law," Monahan told CBN News. "Well, unfortunately, we know now that President Obama has broken his promises."
"Nancy Pelosi said you wouldn't know what's in the bill unless you pass it - except for this: President Obama and the leadership of Congress said there would be no federal subsidies of abortion coverage," LaMontagne added. "And they have either lied or been grossly negligent in enforcing and following up on their promises."
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., helps lead the pro-life caucus in the House of Representatives.
"Agree or disagree with abortion funding, and thankfully a majority of Americans do not want public funds being used for abortion, but people don't like to be deceived. They don't like to be lied to," he said. "And that's exactly what has happened here."
"These massive subsidies for abortion-covering plans amount to a sharp break from decades of federal policy under the Hyde Amendment," Susan Muskett, with the National Right to Life Committee, added.
Smith agreed.
"It is completely, totally, absolutely contrary to the Hyde Amendment," he said.
Smith and other pro-life legislators spearheaded a move in the House to fix the problem with a bill called HR7 but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to let the Senate vote on its version of that bill.
"Polls have shown that Americans don't want abortion coverage in their plans. And they also don't support federal funds for abortion," Melissa Swearingen, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said. "The best solution would be a simple and clean fix. Enact HR7, which is the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.' It does basically what it says in the title: it prohibits federal funds going to abortion."
"But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has prevented Senate action on identical legislation," Muskett pointed out.
"Sen. Reid when he was in the House was one of the most pro-life members of the House of Representatives," Smith said. "His record was identical to that of Henry Hyde."
In the spirit of that record, Smith asked Sen. Reid to get out of the way and let the Senate vote to make it so taxpayer money can't be used to pay for abortions.
The GAO report found that every single Obamacare taxpayer subsidized plan in Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont pays for abortion on demand.
In New York, 405 of the 426 subsidized plans subsidize abortion on demand. In California, it's 86 of the 90 subsidized plans, and in Massachusetts, 109 of 111.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...bortion-Funds/
CBNNews.com
Thursday, September 18, 2014
WASHINGTON -- Outraged lawmakers and pro-life leaders gathered outside the U.S. Capitol building Thursday to demand Congress put an end to Obamacare's massive funding of health care plans that pay for abortions
They pointed out past laws specifically forbid this, but Obamacare is ignoring that legislation and the president's own promises that no taxpayer dollars would subsidize abortion.
The speakers at the Capitol Hill news conference were reacting to a new Government Accountability Office report showing massive federal funding of abortion is allowed for under the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare.
"One thousand-thirty six plans cover elective abortions and are subsidized by taxpayer funds," Arina Grossu, with the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity, said.
"You not only can't keep your doctor, you also can't avoid supporting abortion if you're a taxpayer in this country given Obamacare," Ovide LaMontagne, general counsel of Americans United for Life, said.
The Hyde Amendment passed by Congress in 1977 has made it illegal for taxpayer money to pay for abortion. President Obama also pledged during negotiations over the Affordable Care Act that would continue.
Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said the opposite has happened.
"Obama promised up and down, right and left, that abortion would not be covered in the health care law, and that Americans could be assured on his promise that the Hyde protections that we've known since the 1970s would still be covered in the health care law," Monahan told CBN News. "Well, unfortunately, we know now that President Obama has broken his promises."
"Nancy Pelosi said you wouldn't know what's in the bill unless you pass it - except for this: President Obama and the leadership of Congress said there would be no federal subsidies of abortion coverage," LaMontagne added. "And they have either lied or been grossly negligent in enforcing and following up on their promises."
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., helps lead the pro-life caucus in the House of Representatives.
"Agree or disagree with abortion funding, and thankfully a majority of Americans do not want public funds being used for abortion, but people don't like to be deceived. They don't like to be lied to," he said. "And that's exactly what has happened here."
"These massive subsidies for abortion-covering plans amount to a sharp break from decades of federal policy under the Hyde Amendment," Susan Muskett, with the National Right to Life Committee, added.
Smith agreed.
"It is completely, totally, absolutely contrary to the Hyde Amendment," he said.
Smith and other pro-life legislators spearheaded a move in the House to fix the problem with a bill called HR7 but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has refused to let the Senate vote on its version of that bill.
"Polls have shown that Americans don't want abortion coverage in their plans. And they also don't support federal funds for abortion," Melissa Swearingen, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said. "The best solution would be a simple and clean fix. Enact HR7, which is the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.' It does basically what it says in the title: it prohibits federal funds going to abortion."
"But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has prevented Senate action on identical legislation," Muskett pointed out.
"Sen. Reid when he was in the House was one of the most pro-life members of the House of Representatives," Smith said. "His record was identical to that of Henry Hyde."
In the spirit of that record, Smith asked Sen. Reid to get out of the way and let the Senate vote to make it so taxpayer money can't be used to pay for abortions.
The GAO report found that every single Obamacare taxpayer subsidized plan in Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont pays for abortion on demand.
In New York, 405 of the 426 subsidized plans subsidize abortion on demand. In California, it's 86 of the 90 subsidized plans, and in Massachusetts, 109 of 111.
- Yssup Rider
- 09-19-2014, 12:37 AM
Case in point.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-26-2014, 11:08 AM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-26-2014, 04:11 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-27-2014, 09:11 PM
Trailer: Sick and Sicker—ObamaCare Canadian Style
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-24-2014, 02:46 AM
Benefit Revolution
Free Market Solutions for Employee Benefits and Human Resources
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...er-health-care
HomeNewslettersResourcesMedia CoverageUC Davis InstructionTraining & SeminarsBioVideos
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2014
An American Single Payer Healthcare System "Would Cost an Absolutely Breathtaking Amount of Taxpayer Money, As Vermont Just Found Out"
This is an excerpt from an excellently written and well reasoned column from Megan McArdle writing at Bloomberg:
Vermont decided to scuttle its single-payer health-care plans ... for one simple reason: A single-payer system would cost too much. When faced with the choice of imposing double-digit payroll taxes or dropping his cherished single-payer plan, the governor of Vermont blinked. ...
There is nothing about single payer that will magically allow us to cut costs to European levels. People who believed otherwise were substituting a crude eyeballing of international statistics to substitute for reasoned analysis, in part because it told them what they wanted to be true: that they could have the universality and progressiveness of a single-payer system without having to ask the taxpayer for a giant heap of money to provide those benefits. They were, in the words of one of my favorite public-policy professors, "getting high on their own supply."...
Our spending is indeed high compared with the rest of the world, but that's because it started high. And while restraining government spending is easy, it is a walk in the proverbial (government-funded) park compared to actually cutting spending. Cutting spending means that a number of people are going to lose income and employment. They will have trouble paying their mortgages, car loans and little Johnny's bill for travel soccer. Then they are going to get organized and march on Washington and vote against the politicians who cut their jobs. ...
Health-care jobs are steady and well-remunerated compared to whatever else those workers could be doing. And that's not just true of the much-derided "specialists" who do too many procedures and charge too much; it's true of everyone in your hospital and doctor's office, from your beloved family physician to the woman who draws your blood. All those people have spent long years working to get where they are. If you suddenly change the rules and take that all away, their rage will burn with the righteous fire of a thousand suns.
So even if we could have had a much cheaper health-care system if we moved to single payer in 1970, that doesn't mean that we can get the same happy results by doing so now. Today we'd be building a single-payer system with the price schedule of our current health-care workers. Which means it would cost an absolutely breathtaking amount of taxpayer money, as Vermont just found out. ...
The U.S. health-care system may be all kinds of screwed up. But at least at this late date, single payer is not the cure for what ails it.
Free Market Solutions for Employee Benefits and Human Resources
http://www.bloombergview.com/article...er-health-care
HomeNewslettersResourcesMedia CoverageUC Davis InstructionTraining & SeminarsBioVideos
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2014
An American Single Payer Healthcare System "Would Cost an Absolutely Breathtaking Amount of Taxpayer Money, As Vermont Just Found Out"
This is an excerpt from an excellently written and well reasoned column from Megan McArdle writing at Bloomberg:
Vermont decided to scuttle its single-payer health-care plans ... for one simple reason: A single-payer system would cost too much. When faced with the choice of imposing double-digit payroll taxes or dropping his cherished single-payer plan, the governor of Vermont blinked. ...
There is nothing about single payer that will magically allow us to cut costs to European levels. People who believed otherwise were substituting a crude eyeballing of international statistics to substitute for reasoned analysis, in part because it told them what they wanted to be true: that they could have the universality and progressiveness of a single-payer system without having to ask the taxpayer for a giant heap of money to provide those benefits. They were, in the words of one of my favorite public-policy professors, "getting high on their own supply."...
Our spending is indeed high compared with the rest of the world, but that's because it started high. And while restraining government spending is easy, it is a walk in the proverbial (government-funded) park compared to actually cutting spending. Cutting spending means that a number of people are going to lose income and employment. They will have trouble paying their mortgages, car loans and little Johnny's bill for travel soccer. Then they are going to get organized and march on Washington and vote against the politicians who cut their jobs. ...
Health-care jobs are steady and well-remunerated compared to whatever else those workers could be doing. And that's not just true of the much-derided "specialists" who do too many procedures and charge too much; it's true of everyone in your hospital and doctor's office, from your beloved family physician to the woman who draws your blood. All those people have spent long years working to get where they are. If you suddenly change the rules and take that all away, their rage will burn with the righteous fire of a thousand suns.
So even if we could have had a much cheaper health-care system if we moved to single payer in 1970, that doesn't mean that we can get the same happy results by doing so now. Today we'd be building a single-payer system with the price schedule of our current health-care workers. Which means it would cost an absolutely breathtaking amount of taxpayer money, as Vermont just found out. ...
The U.S. health-care system may be all kinds of screwed up. But at least at this late date, single payer is not the cure for what ails it.
- LexusLover
- 12-24-2014, 03:38 AM
The Supreme Court will address the issue in March, and rule by June or July.
2015.
The "head counters" have already concluded that four have already expressed the opinion to shit can the whole deal .....only one more is needed, then the new Congress can address the issue and the King In Chief can either veto it or sign off on it to determine his "legacy"!
2015.
The "head counters" have already concluded that four have already expressed the opinion to shit can the whole deal .....only one more is needed, then the new Congress can address the issue and the King In Chief can either veto it or sign off on it to determine his "legacy"!
- Yssup Rider
- 12-24-2014, 04:18 PM
Shirley you could have found an older post to bump, SLOBBRIN.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-24-2014, 04:23 PM
- Yssup Rider
- 12-24-2014, 04:29 PM
Knock yourself out, drooler. We can always countyon you to blast them Ozombies!
- IIFFOFRDB
- 12-24-2014, 05:05 PM
