New Rasmussen Pole-

[justplugit]

57 % of Americans don't support the Obama HC plan.
34 % do

Looks like the "planted" astro turf citizens are having an affect.

[JohnnyD]

Put me in the 57%.

However, I wonder how many in that 57% are there because they believe some of the falsehoods like the Obama plan will:
-pay for abortions
-have death panels
-all private health insurance will be banned
-care will be rationed

I don't put much stock in the general US public. Hell, on rare occasion, I have still seen instances of people that think Obama is a Muslim. This is also why I'm against the "Get out and Vote" campaigns. I think we need fewer people voting - but that's a whole different topic.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Put me in the 57%.

This is also why I'm against the "Get out and Vote" campaigns. I think we need fewer people voting - but that's a whole different topic.

JD, curious, who DO you think should vote?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

JD, curious, who DO you think should vote?

The educated.

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The educated.

(ie) Conservatives

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Bronko

(ie) Conservatives

lol... I said educated. Not the ignorant.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The educated.

How would you determine who is educated?

[spence]

I'd be curious to know how many polled thought they actually understood what was they were being polled about!

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

How would you determine who is educated?

I'm not going to say there is an ethical way to state who can and cannot vote. However, ignorant people at the polls do nothing to better this country. People voting for the sake of voting benefits no one.

I wish I could find the reference where I heard it, but I did hear on 96.9 some day soon after the current the election that an entrance poll was done that showed a fair number of people showing up to the polls couldn't even tell you what the election was for - similar exit polls demonstrated that some people didn't even know who the running mate was for the candidate they voted for.

Another poll was done where they replaced views that were clearly Obama's but said they were McCain's and vica-versa, and a fair number of people didn't even notice.

These are the people that shouldn't be going to the polls.

[buckman]

JD, Obama's plan does allow for more federal money for abortions...You can't vote.... NEXT

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

JD, Obama's plan does allow for more federal money for abortions...You can't vote.... NEXT

Obama is part of the executive branch and doesn't actually draft a bill.

There's only a House bill and a Senate bill. *You* can't vote.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

JD, Obama's plan does allow for more federal money for abortions...You can't vote.... NEXT

Please cite specific references. And "I read it on righttolife.com isn't a good reference.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Please cite specific references. And "I read it on righttolife.com isn't a good reference.

-spence

I'll cite it for him.

"Rush told me."

[justplugit]

I understand where your coming from, JD.

For instance, from the man on the street interviews I've seen, to Acorn busing
voters to the polls, there are a lot of people who don't know diddley.

Then there are those that follow a political party like sheep and won't
open their eyes to looking at other candidates or issues no matter what.

However, i think that most people don't have the time trying to work and
raise a family to really know and study the issues. The politicians count
on it knowing if they can throw enough $$$$ on negative TV adds against
their opponent they can win.

In the end, most people vote their own pocketbooks, but thank God
we live in a country where everybody has a right, privilege and obligation to vote.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I understand where your coming from, JD.

For instance, from the man on the street interviews I've seen, to Acorn busing
voters to the polls, there are a lot of people who don't know diddley.

Then there are those that follow a political party like sheep and won't
open their eyes to looking at other candidates or issues no matter what.

However, i think that most people don't have the time trying to work and
raise a family to really know and study the issues. The politicians count
on it knowing if they can throw enough $$$$ on negative TV adds against
their opponent they can win.

In the end, most people vote their own pocketbooks, but thank God
we live in a country where everybody has a right, privilege and obligation to vote.

You're got it exactly.

Voting for President is one of the most important times for this country. I refuse to accept the excuse "I just don't have time to know what's going on." During the last election, it was very easy to find multiple websites that stated what the candidates position was on a large range of subjects, what their voting histories were and what they were campaigning about. This is all the information needed to make the minimum educated vote.

Everyone can put aside 30 minutes the week before an election to learn the facts. All the BS and drama in the months prior does nothing but give us something to talk about on internet forums.

If someone truly can't put aside the time to learn the facts, then they shouldn't vote. Period.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Everyone can put aside 30 minutes the week before an election to learn the facts.

If they had McCain would be President

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Please cite specific references. And "I read it on righttolife.com isn't a good reference.

-spence

I will when I have time Spence ..or... I could just say "that's what Obama meant to say" like you do.

[buckman]

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

A little something picked up with the requisite 2 seconds on Google.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

A little something picked up with the requisite 2 seconds on Google.

You said Federal funds. This article appears to be referencing a government sponsored plan which would be paid for by companies or individuals. This doesn't mean that any more tax (i.e. general fund) money is being spent on abortions.

I'd also note that abortion is quite legal in all 50 states.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You said Federal funds. This article appears to be referencing a government sponsored plan which would be paid for by companies or individuals. This doesn't mean that any more tax (i.e. general fund) money is being spent on abortions.

I'd also note that abortion is quite legal in all 50 states.

-spence

I will bet $100.00 to anyone who will bet that a health plan signed be Obama WON'T increase the availability of $$$ for abortions.

[scottw]

exactly Buck

He claims, "...coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false."

The bill does not exclude payment for abortions, and the sponsors specifically defeated amendments that would have prohibited it, Obama has already declared that he believes that "reproductive healthcare" is basic to healthcare, and the bill would allow the government to define "healthcare". So do you believe him when he says "no", or when he says "yes", to the same question. The answer depends on whether its and odd day or an even day. This is the Infatnticide President afterall, who believes that a baby can be a punishment...

[spence]

Out of one side you claim anybody who parses Obama's words to clarify intent is manipulating the facts.

But then you feel perfectly at home to apply any intent you desire because of course, it's who Obama is.

You guys are total hypocrites.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

The bill does not exclude payment for abortions, and the sponsors specifically defeated amendments that would have prohibited it

Good. Exactly why should any legal medical procedure be excluded?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

A little something picked up with the requisite 2 seconds on Google.

I'd be curious when this was written and if it is actually based on a specific section of the proposed bill or some anti-abortion activist that's pissed any type of abortion will be allowed under the new plan.

My understanding (and I could be wrong because that section of the bill isn't important to me) was that there is no blank check for abortions under the current proposal, just as there isn't under any private company.

Abortion is a part of health care, and I believe all the major insurance companies cover the cost of at least 1 per year. We'll leave the disgusting fact that someone would need more than one/year aside.

But my point is that in the abortion aspect, neither the House or Senate proposals have clauses that go above and beyond what a standard HC company pays for now.

And as Spence mentioned, abortions are legal - and confirmed on more than one occasion by the Supreme Court.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I'd be curious when this was written and if it is actually based on a specific section of the proposed bill or some anti-abortion activist that's pissed any type of abortion will be allowed under the new plan.

The current limitations on Federal funds for abortion primarily deals with Medicaid, the idea being that people too poor to have health insurance shouldn't have the taxpayer funding an elective abortion.

The pro-life advocates say this should extend to any Government plan regardless of how it's structured or who's paying the bill.

If private insurance has provisions for limited abortion, and a Government sponsored plan is a good method to reduce costs through competition, then the idea that a Government sponsored plan (funded by the insured) should be prohibited from similar limited coverage...doesn't make a lot of sense.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Other than the religious implications, I never understood why the right was so anti-abortion.

I'm pro-choice, but if that choice is some crackhead not having her fourth drain on society, welfare etc.. wouldn't you be all for it. Call it societal preventative maintenance for all I care...

*Note, I am not an advocate of using abortion as birth control, but absolutely believe in leaving the choice on the table.

*Note 2: I am not just singling out crack, if you are a heroin or meth-head, the same can apply

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Other than the religious implications, I never understood why the right was so anti-abortion.

The most basic reason for being anti-abortion is the belief that it is murder. Obviously, if you don't believe that a fetus is yet a human being you will not see aborting it as murder, rather, simply a removal of a temporary appendage belonging to the "mother", at her request, of course.

But those who oppose abortion do see the fetus as an innocent human being, and killing an innocent human being other than for self defense, or war, would be murder. You may disagree, but that point of view should not be difficult to understand.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The most basic reason for being anti-abortion is the belief that it is murder. Obviously, if you don't believe that a fetus is yet a human being you will not see aborting it as murder, rather, simply a removal of a temporary appendage belonging to the "mother", at her request, of course.

But those who oppose abortion do see the fetus as an innocent human being, and killing an innocent human being other than for self defense, or war, would be murder. You may disagree, but that point of view should not be difficult to understand.

That's my take on it too.
I could never figure out why abortion was legal but killing a fetus in a womb during an assault was murder. I guess it's Ok if you have permission. To bad they can't ask the one being killed.