Comments on: What Saturday’s House Vote Means

By: passerby825

passerby825 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:38:10 +0000

Sen. Judd Gregg (the Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee) cited a CBO report, but, like I said, I see no number even close to 3 trillion in the CBO report.

By: passerby825

passerby825 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:36:28 +0000

but he cites the CBO, and I didn’t see that in the CBO’s report.

By: leehedstrom

leehedstrom — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:58:10 +0000

It seems that Democrats really don’t care whether the healthcare bill will hurt them. They think thet will be able to overcome any obstacle to their reelection. Since we are all stupid and will follow them whereever they lead, because we aren’t smart enough to think on our own, they can do whatever they want. They have a grand plan, and that plan is to create a system wherein they control everyone and everything.

By: Menlo

Menlo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:00:00 +0000

This bill does not “effectively outlaw abortion,” not even close. It just says insurance can’t pay for it. As I said above, there are states where no insurance can cover abortion without a rider. Abortions are done in those states routinely.

Outside of states that fund abortion, 98 percent of women pay the full cost themselves, a flat fee that is generally advertised.

Whether newly composed courts decades from now will overrule decades of many explicit precedents is another question. I am reminded of Harry Blackmun’s “let them eat cake” dissent when they ruled in favor of the Hyde Amendment.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:27:52 +0000

and it’s almost like they have some grand plan and expectation that they can find the public’s approval again, so just run with it. Do they have reason to believe this?

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:20:55 +0000

and Congress’ poll numbers.

Focusing on health care is going to keep driving DEM numbers down and at some point they will give up.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:19:23 +0000

reconciliation in the Senate.

If they were going to try that, they would have already.

They can’t because of Democratic opposition to using reconciliation for health care reform.

The need 60 votes.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:17:15 +0000

but it is pretty clear that the last thing either house wants is to vote on these bills repeatedly.

The cost is too high politically.

Furthermore, there are huge difference in the House and Senate bills, like the taxes on individuals vs. taxes on health plans in the Senate bill that cannot be reconciled.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:14:15 +0000

If the courts argued that the government had to fund abortion rights, I’d petition for funding of my Second Amendment rights.

More ammo, pls.

By: izoneguy

izoneguy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:41:34 +0000

as a “Now & Never” proposition.

She is just like Obama….it is all about her.

By: Freedoms Truth

Freedoms Truth — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:26:01 +0000

Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

To simplify what the link says, there are 2 things: 1. CBO includes the tax costs, but not all mandate costs to businesses and people now forced at gunpoint to buy ‘approved’ health insurance 2. $3 trillion is the 10-year cost when the program is fully implemented… the lower numbers are hiding costs because program doesnt kick in for a few years.

By: Freedoms Truth

Freedoms Truth — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:22:07 +0000

1. Calling for the vote now, after NJ and VA, was all about *NOT* letting the elections hurt their agenda momentum.

2. Their base was clamoring for government-run plan in the bill (aka ‘public option’). This placates them.

3. Adjourning this year without addressing healthcare would leave it into the next year, dangerous time.

By: Freedoms Truth

Freedoms Truth — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:16:33 +0000

The governing consensus has been “You can have your Roe v Wade for now, but NO TAXPAYER MONEY FOR ABORTION.” That was the Hyde amendment, and it has stood the test of time in DC.

The Obama attempt to crack that ran up into the reality that (a) not a single GOP vote for it and (b) 40-50 Democrats oppose taxpayer funded abortions too … and why not, that is is a position opposed byalmost 2-3rds of the voters.

Don’t forget that one way they got this thing – BARELY – passing was to get the US Catholic bishops off their backs, who took the EXTRAORDINARY position of expressing prolife concerns about the bill.

Stupak + 64 pro-lifers+ USCCB = Game over for the assault on the Hyde amendment.

This is why I DONT think the GOP was wrong to support the Stupak amendment. A) It was the right principle, and they have established the Hyde/Stupak position is the majority one in the House, even with this leftist leaning House. B) Stopping Stupak could have resulted in a bill that was weaker on pro-life but passed anyway (eg Ellsworth was a weaker version of same), and that would have made the GOP look even more foolish for not ‘improving’ the bill when they had a chance.

It may be the Dem leader’s goal to fund abortions in ObamalosiCare, but the reality is that they DONT HAVE THE VOTES to destroy healthcare AND have taxpayer funded abortions all in one bill.

The fact that they threw THE abortion agenda under the bus, AND caved on the “Medicare+5″ proggie agenda, AND had to buy off AARP and AMA and a host of other buyoffs (just like the pork in cap-and-trade), and after all that wheeling and dealing, still only got 220 … phew … WEAK WEAK win. Yes, a win is a win, but this is a real weak one.

They managed to get to the point this saturday where cap-and-trade was in June.

Victory? Pyhrric.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:45:31 +0000

The fact that the new health care reform will, changes the equation. Oh the charade of “competition” might last for a decade at most, but once that decade is over, government will be the only insurance option, and at that point SCOTUS will rule it must cover abortion.

My timeline here isn’t the next quarter or the next election cycle; it’s the final endgame.

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:51:46 +0000

This was ZERO victory for innocents (unborn)… It DOES NOT prevent, stop, limit, exclude, Abortions but just stops us from paying for them (which we all know that is a lie from the get-go too). Don’t help the Democrats try and make their DISTORTION case about the Stupak Amendment somehow being an affront to their ability to kill children (Abortion itself)!

By: GregInFla

GregInFla — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:48:44 +0000

at least 2 Repubicans voting Yea. Guarandarnteed.

By: GregInFla

GregInFla — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:25:40 +0000

and I don’t see the military contingent leaving the GOP side. Heck, Obama voted against the increase in the minimum wage in 2007 and still got elected by the libs.

By: restofva

restofva — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:26:33 +0000

“The idea is they keep what both wanted and negotiate the rest, but in reality they can do whatever they want to some extent.”
There was something in the stimulus if I remember correctly (may have been Harry’s train) that had 2 different dollar figures going in then came out with a 3rd number higher than both of the others.

By: Menlo

Menlo — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:21:48 +0000

HR 3200 and the Baucus bill (and I think even the House bill before Stupak) already contained a fake amendment that would have been no more than an accounting gimmick. This provision had unanimous approval from the pro-abortion side in the committees.

By: Leopard1996

Leopard1996 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:18:16 +0000

Abortion always has to be an option, no ifs ands or buts about it. In a single payer system, at somepoint someone will probably wind up forcing someone to have an abortion to keep the program sustainable.