CBO:Obama Budget Plan Underestimates Deficits

[B_talltpaguy]

^My guess is Pelosi will undress Stupak and his cronies if needed. Stupak is still a mid level foot soldier and he can still have his political career shut down by those above him if he doesn't watch it. Those supporting his amendment are in even worse position, career-wise.

 

[Trinity]

^My guess is Pelosi will undress Stupak and his cronies if needed. Stupak is still a mid level foot soldier and he can still have his political career shut down by those above him if he doesn't watch it. Those supporting his amendment are in even worse position, career-wise.

As I said...3-4 groups don't support it and can shut-it-down.:wink:

 

[Industrialsize]

Bart Stupak Abortion Claims Debunked: Health Bill Would NOT Force Federal Spending On Abortion


ABC News found that one of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) biggest contentions in his fight against health care reform legislation -- that federal money will go to "directly subsidize abortions" -- is not true in all cases.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly asserted that there is "no federally funded abortion" in the bill.
According to ABC's Jonathan Karl: "Pelosi is right in that the bill makes it clear, there can be no federal money for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother."

 

[Trinity]

Bart Stupak Abortion Claims Debunked: Health Bill Would NOT Force Federal Spending On Abortion

ABC News found that one of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) biggest contentions in his fight against health care reform legislation -- that federal money will go to "directly subsidize abortions" -- is not true in all cases.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly asserted that there is "no federally funded abortion" in the bill.
According to ABC's Jonathan Karl: "Pelosi is right in that the bill makes it clear, there can be no federal money for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother."

The title of that article should have been: Not Debunked

Senate’s Weak Abortion Language Could Kill Obama Health Reform Bill
US News & World Report
Peter Roff- Thomas Jefferson Street blog, Opinion

Though President Barack Obama and the White House would have people believe otherwise, the anti-abortion funding provisions included in the Senate-passed version of the healthcare bill are significantly weaker than the so-called "ironclad" prohibitions that Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak added to the bill in the House. The differences matter, so much so that Stupak and a handful of colleagues--enough to kill the Senate bill if it is brought up in the House--are threatening to vote 'No' unless the language to block federal funds from paying for abortions and abortion-related services is strengthened.
They have the votes to do it. The bill only passed by the barest of margins the first time.

excerpt and abridged

Senate Bill Funds Abortion in Multiple Ways

Despite this level of public support for excluding abortion subsidies from health care reform, H.R. 3590 effectively finances abortions in several ways, even creating a new appropriation for FQHCs[5] that contains no limit at all on abortion subsidies. Among the most important of these provisions, the Senate bill[6] would:

• Establish a mechanism for permitting the funding of elective abortions by private health plans that receive federal subsidies in the form of premium tax credits.
• Directly appropriate $7 billion over five years in operating funds for FQHCs. Because these funds would not need to be included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Labor and HHS, and because the underlying statute includes no limitation on abortion funding, these funds--as well as $1.5 billion in appropriations for the National Health Service Corps and $1.5 billion for FQHC construction and renovation--could be used to pay directly for elective abortions and to expand abortion facilities.
• Leave to the discretion of HHS whether a mandate for "preventative services" for women under the bill could be interpreted to include elective abortions. Efforts to include language clarifying that this does not include abortion were rebuffed.
• Leave unanswered whether its non-preemption provisions include state laws on abortion beyond those specifically enumerated in the bill. State laws on abortion funding and parental notification and consent are specifically protected from preemption. The Senate bill is silent on whether it could be construed to preempt these state laws regarding such topics as late-term abortions.

• Heritage.org

 

[Industrialsize]

First, I totally discount anything the Heritage Foundation says about abortion because they are a political organization that wants to make it illegal. Second, the opinion piece from US news and world report is correct. The language that Bart Stupak insisted be in the house bill goes FAR beyond the Hyde Amendment in its restrictiveness. The Senate bill maintains the hyde Amendment which has been the law of the land for quite some time.

 

[Trinity]

First, I totally discount anything the Heritage Foundation says about abortion because they are a political organization that wants to make it illegal.

You can't discount the opposing view simply because it is the opposing view.

Second, the opinion piece from US news and world report is correct. The language that Bart Stupak insisted be in the house bill goes FAR beyond the Hyde Amendment in its restrictiveness. The Senate bill maintains the hyde Amendment which has been the law of the land for quite some time.

The US News and World Report article does not state that the language Stupak insisted on goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment in restrictiveness any shape, form or fashion.

Stupak is on record as offering the language from any of 8 different legislative bills that adhere to the Hyde Admendment and already accepted into law. If nothing is different in "language" then the senate should have accepted the Stupak Amendment instead of changing the language.

Heritage explains how the Senate Bill can allow federal funds to go to abortions regardless of the Hyde Amendment.

 

[Industrialsize]

You can't discount the opposing view simply because it is the opposing view.



The US News and World Report article does not state that the language Stupak insisted on goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment in restrictiveness any shape, form or fashion.

Stupak is on record as offering the language from any of 8 different legislative bills that adhere to the Hyde Admendment and already accepted into law. If nothing is different in "language" then the senate should have accepted the Stupak Amendment instead of changing the language.

Heritage explains how the Senate Bill can allow federal funds to go to abortions regardless of the Hyde Amendment.

You're right. "The US News and World Report article does not state that the language Stupak insisted on goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment in restrictiveness any shape, form or fashion. " You see I have a thinking mind and can form my own opinions. I SAID IT. And if you don't think that "Family Member", denizen of C Street Stupak is not pushing something more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment, you are very NAIVE>

 

[Trinity]

You're right. "The US News and World Report article does not state that the language Stupak insisted on goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment in restrictiveness any shape, form or fashion. " You see I have a thinking mind and can form my own opinions. I SAID IT. And if you don't think that "Family Member", denizen of C Street Stupak is not pushing something more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment, you are very NAIVE>

That's right, it was your opinion. Stupak is on record stating that language already in 8 bills to meet the Hyde Amendment would suffice. If nothing changes in the Senate bill then:

the senate should have accepted the Stupak Amendment instead of changing the language.

Naivety? Is thinking that the Hyde Amendment is met without making sure with ironclad language and betting on fixing it later:

The President's own proposal for health care reform[7] acknowledges that it works from the premises of H.R. 3590. It adds nothing new with respect to the abortion language of H.R. 3590, and it can therefore be presumed to envision its enactment. In fact, the White House proposes to boost the direct appropriation for FQHCs to $11 billion over five years. Again, these funds are governed by no abortion funding limitation whatsoever.
Moreover, the prospect of using the budget reconciliation process to implement House-supported changes to the Senate bill holds out little hope for congressional approval of Stupak-Pitts. On March 2, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that changes to abortion law could not occur in reconciliation because "under the budget resolution you can only take up issues that are central to the budget," and abortion is not among those issues.[8]

Heritage.org

 

[Industrialsize]

That's right, it was your opinion. Stupak is on record stating that language already in 8 bills to meet the Hyde Amendment would suffice. If nothing changes in the Senate bill then:

the senate should have accepted the Stupak Amendment instead of changing the language.

Naivety? Is thinking that the Hyde Amendment is met without making sure with ironclad language and betting on fixing it later:

Heritage.org

Bart Stupak can go "on the record" and LIE as much as he wants. And you can quit qouting the JERRY FALWELL created Heritage foundation. You don't exactly expect them to be "impartial" regarding the issue of abortion, do you?

 

[Trinity]

Bart Stupak can go "on the record" and LIE as much as he wants. And you can quit qouting the JERRY FALWELL created Heritage foundation. You don't exactly expect them to be "impartial" regarding the issue of abortion, do you?

Impartiality huh? Pro-Choice members wanted it stripped to allow federal funds to go to abortions:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case.”

The Hill.com

Abortion-rights supporters called it a “de facto” abortion ban and mounted an intense but unsuccessful lobbying campaign against it.

The Hill.com

“It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that contained that kind of restriction on a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices,” Wasserman Schultz said.

The Hill.com

The Heritage article discusses what the President's own proposal states and what Speaker Pelosi admitted herself:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At a Tuesday afternoon press conference, Pelosi talked about what a reconciliation bill can do and said abortion funding can't be touched because it is not related to the budget.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]She responded to a question about whether abortion funding would be affected. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Under the budget resolution you can only take up issues that are central to the budget. None of these issues..are dealt with in the budget," she said, according to The Hill. "Neither of these issues is central to the bill. This is not an immigration bill, this is not an abortion bill."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In order to be part of the budget bill, it has to be central to the budget....It's a very strict rule," [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]she admitted.[/FONT]

Lifenews.com

Another Democrat backed that up in the article cited:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, made the remarks in an interview with MSNBC.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I think changes to abortion would probably not be permitted under reconciliation and the Byrd Rule requirement," he said.[/FONT]

Lifenews.com

 

[Industrialsize]

Of course the pro-choice crowd wanted the Stupak amendment stripped because it goes far past and is MORE restrictive than the Hyde amendment which has been and is the current law of the land. Stupak and his crowd are trying to use Health Care Reform to further restrict access to abortion.

 

[deleted15807]

In your world, where do the "chicken shit" Americans go who get necessary care to stay alive that they, for whatever reason, can't afford? Do they go to a debtors prison and work off their debt on the chain gang? Or do you credit check them at the door, like corporate car dealers do?

Tell us all of the details of how this system you propose works, while covering everyone and consuming less of our GDP than any other way could possibly do.

Huuum has this question ever been answered? The free market has winners and losers and the losers of the world are just that 'losers' and it's all their fault so we don't worry about them. Unless the losers are the rich then we must help them. We could end up stiffing innovation and entrepreneurship if we don't.:smile:

 

[Industrialsize]

Huuum has this question ever been answered? The free market has winners and losers and the losers of the world are just that 'losers' and it's all their fault so we don't worry about them. Unless the losers are the rich then we must help them. We could end up stiffing innovation and entrepreneurship if we don't.:smile:

And don't forget LIBERTY

 

[deleted15807]

^ exactly

 

[Trinity]

Of course the pro-choice crowd wanted the Stupak amendment stripped because it goes far past and is MORE restrictive than the Hyde amendment which has been and is the current law of the land. Stupak and his crowd are trying to use Health Care Reform to further restrict access to abortion.

The Stupak Amendment is not more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment. When public funds are going to clinics which fund abortions, then the Stupak Amendment is meeting the same requirements of the Hyde Amendment.

There is no restriction to abortion in the Stupak Amendment if a woman wishes to have one and pay for it herself.

 

[Industrialsize]

How The Stupak Amendment Changes The Status Quo


Wonk Room How The Stupak Amendment Changes The Status Quo

But the Bishops lobbied against this compromise and demanded that the far-reaching Stupak Amendment be adopted. This measure:

- Goes beyond the Hyde Amendment by preventing women from using their own money to buy an insurance plan that includes abortion, even though no public funding would be spent on abortion services.
- Gives insurance companies an incentive to discriminate against low- and moderate-income women.
- Limits insurance companies in deciding what benefits to offer their customers
- Provides for the purchase of flimsy abortion-only riders that are unlikely to be offered or purchased.
- Allows for discrimination against health care providers who are willing to offer abortion services
​

Stupak Amendment Changes Abortion Status Quo

How Abortion Funding Would Be Affected by Health Reform Bills

The following link has an easy to read chart:
Stupak Amendment Changes Abortion Status Quo

Why the Stupak Amendment to the Healthcare Reform Bill Is Unconstitutional

Why the Stupak Amendment to the Healthcare Reform Bill Is Unconstitutional
Will the Stupak Amendment Affect Insurance Coverage for Miscarriages? I Think So

Will the Stupak Amendment Affect Insurance Coverage for Miscarriages? I Think So | RHRealityCheck.org

And a Video:
Gillibrand Battles Stupak Health Care Measure

 

[Trinity]

How The Stupak Amendment Changes The Status Quo

Wonk Room How The Stupak Amendment Changes The Status Quo

But the Bishops lobbied against this compromise and demanded that the far-reaching Stupak Amendment be adopted. This measure:
Stupak Amendment Changes Abortion Status Quo

How Abortion Funding Would Be Affected by Health Reform Bills

The following link has an easy to read chart:
Stupak Amendment Changes Abortion Status Quo

Thanks for the chart. The chart shows that the Stupak Amendment doesn't change the status quo because the status quo is: No Federal Funds can go to abortion.

As the Heritage Foundation pointed out, the Senate Bill contains language that would allow Federal Funds to go to abortions:

Despite this level of public support for excluding abortion subsidies from health care reform, H.R. 3590 effectively finances abortions in several ways, even creating a new appropriation for FQHCs[5] that contains no limit at all on abortion subsidies. Among the most important of these provisions, the Senate bill[6]would:

• Establish a mechanism for permitting the funding of elective abortions by private health plans that receive federal subsidies in the form of premium tax credits. The bill creates a policy of segregating funds that presumptively keeps the premium payment for the overall plan separate from a premium of not less than $1 per month per subscriber that pays for elective abortions. All enrollees in these plans would be required to make both types of premium payments, irrespective of age, sex, or family status.
• Directly appropriate $7 billion over five years in operating funds for FQHCs. Because these funds would not need to be included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Labor and HHS, and because the underlying statute includes no limitation on abortion funding, these funds--as well as $1.5 billion in appropriations for the National Health Service Corps and $1.5 billion for FQHC construction and renovation--could be used to pay directly for elective abortions and to expand abortion facilities.

Just because pro-choice legislators attempted to be clever in writing legislation to get around the Hyde Amendment doesn't mean Pro-life legislators aren't smart enough to block such attempts. The Stupak Amendment simply prevents Federal Funds from going to Abortion which is the requirement of the Hyde Amendment.

 

[Industrialsize]

you don't read very well^^^^^

 

[Trinity]

you don't read very well^^^^^

Try reading it from NPR:

Government Money: In general, government money cannot be used to pay for abortion. The government-administered health plan — often called the public option — will not cover abortion, unless a doctor certifies that a woman is in danger of death without one, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
If you get your health insurance through the government, or with help from the government in the form of a tax subsidy, your plan will not cover abortion. In this case, you would have the right to buy extra coverage — with your own money.
If you get your health insurance through your state, as in Medicaid, your state could buy supplemental abortion coverage for everyone it insures. And 17 states already do this under Medicaid.

The Exchange: The next section of the abortion amendment deals with the exchange. That's the government-administered service where people can buy insurance and join a risk pool. One of the reasons health care is so expensive for people who don't get it through their work is that they're not in a large risk pool. The bill tries to group them together and cut costs for everyone.
Private insurance companies that offer a health plan through the exchange are allowed to cover abortion. But if they're going to, the companies must also offer another plan that is identical in every way, except that it does not cover abortion.
So, say you're buying insurance with your own money, and you get it through the exchange. You can choose a policy that covers abortion, or one that doesn't. But if you're getting help from the government to buy that insurance — in the form of a tax subsidy — you may not choose a plan that covers abortion. You are still allowed to buy a supplemental policy with your own money.

The rest is Pro-Choice people trying to get around the Hyde Amendment. Period.

 

[Industrialsize]

"Unlike the Hyde Amendment—which allows states to use their own money to finance abortions—private insurers would not be able to use private premiums to finance abortions if there is even one person in the plan who used a government subsidy to pay a share of their premium."

"Because approximately 86 percent of exchange participants will rely on some government assistance to purchase health insurance, it is unlikely that private insurers will try to offer abortion services in their plans. Insurers would be allowed to sell abortion-only insurance riders in the exchange, but, again, it is unlikely they will do so. There is no data that any insurance companies sell such riders in the five states where abortion coverage is required to be sold in this manner"
"Current restrictions on federal spending for abortion services in government programs would not change. It is possible that government payments to employer-sponsored insurance plans outside the exchange might carry the Stupak restrictions.'