Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (38460)	11/11/2009 9:38:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "If you want an abortion, pay for it." That has been suggested for the newly proposed health insurance exchanges.... That patients be permitted to spend THEIR OWN MONEY to buy an insurance policy rider if they want to that would give them coverage for such a medical procedure. (Current law, as it has for some decades now, bans the spending of taxpayer money on abortions....)

To: TimF who wrote (38460)	11/12/2009 2:45:47 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

A hard choice on health care By E.J. Dionne Jr. Thursday, November 12, 2009 washingtonpost.com For some years, Democrats have denounced parodies that cast their party as utterly closed to the views of those who oppose abortion. Last weekend, Democrats proved conclusively that they are, indeed, a big tent -- and many in the ranks are furious. From the outraged comments of the abortion-rights movement, you'd think that Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to the House version of the health-care bill would all but overturn Roe v. Wade. No, it wouldn't. The Michigan Democrat's measure -- passed 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats voting yes -- would prohibit abortion coverage in the public option and bar any federal subsidies for plans that included abortion purchased on the new insurance exchanges. Stupak argues that the federal government has stayed out of the business of financing abortion since passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976 and that none of the policies available on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program covers elective abortion. The structures that reform would create, he says, should carry the same restrictions, which do not apply in cases involving rape or incest or when a mother's life is in danger. Supporters of abortion rights counter that, at the very least, individuals who pay part of the cost of their policies should be allowed to choose abortion coverage. Whatever else is true, Stupak's amendment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the availability of abortion. And most abortions are not paid for through health insurance. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reported that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by providers to insurance companies -- although the institute has cautioned that the proportion of women whose abortions were covered by insurance could be higher because the figure did not include those "who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves." The odd thing is that everyone in this fight insists that the only goal is to maintain the status quo on abortion. But defining the status quo has been a legislative and negotiating nightmare. Democratic leaders once thought they had found the middle ground with an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps of California. She proposed segregating the money paid in for health insurance. Abortion coverage could be purchased with the premiums paid by individuals, but not with government money. Abortion opponents argued that this separation of funds was artificial and that all money paid to the government plan was, by definition, public. So Rep. Brad Ellsworth, a right-to-life Democrat from Indiana, suggested an alternative that became known as "Capps on steroids." It substantially strengthened the barriers between public and private funds, particularly in the public plan. But a key group of Democrats who supported the rest of the House bill (roughly 10 by the best count I have been able to get) was still not satisfied, partly because the Roman Catholic bishops were not satisfied. These Democrats turned out to be essential on a bill that ultimately passed by five votes. Last Friday night, Stupak put forward a final compromise to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have prohibited abortion coverage in the public plan but would have allowed an annual vote on the abortion ban for the private plans. Pro-choice Democrats rejected this, and the stronger version of Stupak's proposal then passed. What happens now? Democratic supporters of abortion rights need to accept that their House majority depends on a large cadre of antiabortion colleagues. They can denounce that reality or they can learn to live with it. There is also a challenge for abortion's foes, above all the Catholic bishops who have a long history of supporting universal coverage but devoted most of their recent energy to the abortion battle. How much muscle will the bishops put behind the broader effort to pass health-care reform? Their credibility as advocates for social justice hangs in the balance. And if the Senate forces a change in the Stupak language, one obvious approach would involve a ban on abortion in the public plan -- if such an option survives -- and the application of Ellsworth's rules to the private policies sold in the insurance exchange. The alternative would be Stupak's original compromise offer to Pelosi. There are not many other options. The truth is that even with the Stupak restrictions, health-care reform would leave millions of Americans far better off than they are now -- including millions of women. This skirmish over abortion cannot be allowed to destroy the opportunity to extend coverage to 35 million Americans. Killing health-care reform would be bad for choice -- and very bad for the right to life. ejdionne@washpost.com

To: TimF who wrote (38460)	10/18/2010 5:00:07 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Mean Maureen October 16, 2010 9:31 P.M. By Dana Perino I used to enjoy reading Maureen Dowd. I think she has a way with words and at times she even promotes thinking outside of conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, those columns are few and far between. Reading her column in the Sunday New York Times irritated me. I guess that’s her specialty — irritation. I remember once after I’d left the White House I mentioned one of her columns to a friend and the friend said, “You know, you don’t have to read that stuff any more . . . you graduated.” But I’m a news junkie; I can’t help myself. Kind of like some women and chocolate. Whoops! Sorry — did I say something stereotypical and uncalled for? That’s exactly what her column about mean Republican and conservative women is — stereotypical and uncalled for. She lists the usual suspects — as in, those expected to win. Yet reading her piece I keep thinking, has she met any of those women? Does she still feel that way after walking away? I’m fortunate to meet a lot of women from both sides of the aisle — and with few exceptions I like them all. I certainly don’t think any of them are mean. Can women have moments they aren’t proud of? Sure. But to write all conservative and Republican women off as mean is . . . mean. One night her name came up at a dinner attended by members of both parties. Someone told a story about how at a past dinner she’d been a guest and had been droning on and on in a catty way and that one of the men at the table wrote on a cocktail napkin and passed it to another. It said, “What happened to her?” Sigh. Who the heck knows? Perhaps she was a mean girl. Or maybe mean girls picked on her. Not in high school, but in adulthood — and now she can think how powerful she is by writing catty columns on America’s most liberal editorial page. A column like today’s keeps those cocktail-party invitations coming. After the mid-term election, you can guarantee that she’ll write about how the Republicans are standing in the way of progress and so pig-headed they just won’t compromise and support the liberal agenda. And she wonders why conservatives increasingly believe that liberal elites can’t relate to America? Usually I’d ignore her. But most conservative women running for office don’t have time to stop and be petty. I can do that for them. As I’ve said about Maureen: It must be hard to be that angry all the time. That’s why I stay cheerful — just to irritate her. Two can play at that game, sister. nationalreview.com