Balta1701 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Sometimes I wonder where people get these crazy ideas... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...sLILKgD9ASKCQG2 Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 20 hours ago WASHINGTON — Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul. The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee. The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years. Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries. Critics say the plans are overpaid, while supporters say they work well. Obama says cuts to Medicare providers won't reduce seniors' benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) Sometimes I wonder where people get these crazy ideas... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...sLILKgD9ASKCQG2 This is the question I asked recently about this new plan - what is being cut in those payments? I still don't really know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 And here is how abortions are getting funded... http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR09I05&f=PR09I05&t=e "Senator Baucus' new health care bill puts to rest the President's claim that 'abortion is not included' in the Senate health care bill. The Baucus plan includes abortion, pure and simple. Like the Capps abortion amendment in the House bill, the Baucus plan would subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions but with tax credits. The accounting used in the bill is a matter of smoke and mirrors, since elective abortion is authorized for health plans receiving government subsidies. "The Baucus bill goes even farther by mandating that there be at least one health plan in each region across the country which covers elective abortions. Such a government mandate of abortion-covered plans in each state exchange and subsidizing such plans does little to prevent 'federal funding of abortion' as President Obama said last week. Moreover, the Baucus bill would spend $6 billion to establish health care co-ops and this funding could be used for elective abortion because it is not subject to the Hyde Amendment appropriations provision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) And here is how abortions are getting funded... http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR09I05&f=PR09I05&t=e YOU LIE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) YOU LIE!!! So, by that standard, the only way that this could make you happy is for the federal government to ban abortion, because otherwise there will be some insurers that cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) So, by that standard, the only way that this could make you happy is for the federal government to ban abortion, because otherwise there will be some insurers that cover it. Which is pretty much exactly why the Obama admin is lying when it saids that federal funds would not fund abortions. They are playing accounting tricks that would make Enron proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) Which is pretty much exactly why the Obama admin is lying when it saids that federal funds would not fund abortions. They are playing accounting tricks that would make Enron proud. And its bulls*** that he has to tiptoe around it to begin with. It's a legal medical procedure, and can be at times, medically necessary. Insurance companies should be able to cover legal medical procedures, no matter who is funding it, as long as the plan specifically covers the procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Which is pretty much exactly why the Obama admin is lying when it saids that federal funds would not fund abortions. They are playing accounting tricks that would make Enron proud. Come on! OBAMA does not lie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) And its bulls*** that he has to tiptoe around it to begin with. It's a legal medical procedure, and can be at times, medically necessary. Insurance companies should be able to cover legal medical procedures, no matter who is funding it, as long as the plan specifically covers the procedure. I'd rather that be said than the outright lies about not funding it. I mentioned Enron on purpose in my last post. Their strategy of creating shell companies to absorb losses, while being funding with Enron stock is pretty much exactly what the federal government is going to do here. They are self-admittedly creating separate entities outside of the realm of the bill that gets passed here so that they can say they aren't funding abortions, even though the same tax dollars are indeed being shuffled to another place to do exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) And here is how abortions are getting funded... http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR09I05&f=PR09I05&t=e So, a posting on the Family Research Council's website, with no actual quote or reference to the bill in question, and I am supposed to believe this is true? I call foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) So, a posting on the Family Research Council's website, with no actual quote or reference to the bill in question, and I am supposed to believe this is true? I call foul. Google it. They aren't the only ones. How about that bastion of neutrality, factcheck.org? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-...is-fabricating/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) Google it. They aren't the only ones. How about that bastion of neutrality, factcheck.org? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-...is-fabricating/ Eh, that's about what was said before, and makes sense. It doesn't fund them in any direct way, but insurance plans that are new public plans (which by the way, as of now, aren't even IN the Baucus plan as I understand it) COULD cover them based on their own coverage guidelines. But this is all moot anyway, as there IS NO PUBLIC PLAN in Baucus' bill - remember how that was left out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Abortion. Yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 No reason why abortions shouldn't be covered. But like that dude NSS just said, baucus has no public plan in his. Unless subsidies for lower class to get insurance from private insurers that have plans that cover abortion means that OMG WE'RE FUNDING BABY KILLERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:03 PM) And its bulls*** that he has to tiptoe around it to begin with. It's a legal medical procedure, and can be at times, medically necessary. Insurance companies should be able to cover legal medical procedures, no matter who is funding it, as long as the plan specifically covers the procedure. Some cosmetic surgeries are legal medical procedures that can be, at times, medically necessary as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) Some cosmetic surgeries are legal medical procedures that can be, at times, medically necessary as well. So they should be covered. Far be it from me to prohibit insurance companies to choose what non basic procedures they would cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:56 PM) So they should be covered. Far be it from me to prohibit insurance companies to choose what non basic procedures they would cover. Agreed that they should be able to cover whatever legal procedure they would like. What I disagree with was the mandating of it. (Which upon reading your post again, I realize you never said). It was mentioned in one of the posts above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:12 PM) I'd rather that be said than the outright lies about not funding it. I mentioned Enron on purpose in my last post. Their strategy of creating shell companies to absorb losses, while being funding with Enron stock is pretty much exactly what the federal government is going to do here. They are self-admittedly creating separate entities outside of the realm of the bill that gets passed here so that they can say they aren't funding abortions, even though the same tax dollars are indeed being shuffled to another place to do exactly that. Kind of like social security. And medicare. And medicaid. Oh wait - the government is altruistic. I keep forgetting that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 08:22 PM) Kind of like social security. And medicare. And medicaid. Oh wait - the government is altruistic. I keep forgetting that. LOL So Social Security moving a group of the population that was at once the most likely to be in poverty to now one of the least, is evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Also, if you ever turn to FRC for support for your argument, I'm pretty sure you lose by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:52 PM) Also, if you ever turn to FRC for support for your argument, I'm pretty sure you lose by default. There was another, much more liberal friendly link provided for the people who suddenly think sources matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) There was another, much more liberal friendly link provided for the people who suddenly think sources matter. "Suddenly" my big white hairy butt - I always ask sources for something like that, and always question when the source is a highly biased site with no actual quotes of the word or bill at hand. Which is why I appreciated the Fact Check site as being a bit better, and responded to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 04:23 PM) "Suddenly" my big white hairy butt - I always ask sources for something like that, and always question when the source is a highly biased site with no actual quotes of the word or bill at hand. Which is why I appreciated the Fact Check site as being a bit better, and responded to that. Ewwww. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) So they should be covered. Far be it from me to prohibit insurance companies to choose what non basic procedures they would cover. "breast augmentation? covered." "breast reduction? ....... not covered" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts