New Rasmussen Pole-

[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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

Johnny, you just don't get it.

As we've learned from the members of this site, the fundamental problem with the health care proposal is that it's an unnecessary Government intrusion into our lives.

That is precisely why it's necessary for the Government to restrict your choices versus an already regulated private insurance plan on this issue. Because Nanci Pelosi won't stop until every fetus is dead.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

So you think any legal medical procedure should be covered by health insurance? If it's an elective procedure it shouldn't be covered. In the cases where abortion is covered now (rape, incest), it should still be covered under any plan. If it's just because people were being stupid and careless, they can pay for it out of their pockets.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

So you think any legal medical procedure should be covered by health insurance? If it's an elective procedure it shouldn't be covered. In the cases where abortion is covered now (rape, incest), it should still be covered under any plan. If it's just because people were being stupid and careless, they can pay for it out of their pockets.

It was moreso an extension of my previous comment. Probably should have said "Exactly why should any legal medical procedure *that's covered by other providers* be excluded".

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It was moreso an extension of my previous comment. Probably should have said "Exactly why should any legal medical procedure *that's covered by other providers* be excluded".

I think more to the point is that by specifically excluding some procedures, you might create future conflicts with existing laws.

There is some (very limited mind you) allowed Federal funding of abortion in cases of rape and when the mother's life is in danger.

It doesn't make any sense to insert blind restrictions into early provisions of the bill, unless it's just to rile the base.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

aren't medical procedures suppose to improve your health?

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

Ok,, what about "adda#^&#^&#^&#^&tome's" or "chopa#^&#^&#^&#^&offame's"? should legal sex change operations be covered? Where does it end?

In the civilian run systems, you choose the one that provides what you decide you want...

with a government run system, they and only they would decide what is and isnt covered... at least with our substandard plans we have now, we have choices to alter or get plans we like.

Give people "tax free" accounts similar to IRA's that can only be used "tax free" to cover medical accounts for routine care and only provide a catastrophic plan for everyone. Routine stuff should be paid for or covered by your health savings accounts,,,

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Ok,, what about "adda#^&#^&#^&#^&tome's" or "chopa#^&#^&#^&#^&offame's"? should legal sex change operations be covered? Where does it end?

You obviously didn't read the entire thread.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You obviously didn't read the entire thread.

that's correct CB...Mainstream Johnny will decide the cut off or eligibility point for ...wait ...addicts and addadictome's are two different things right?...well, desn't matter JD will decide who is eligible/not eligible based on habits...educated/not educated enough...ignorant/ not ignorant....on crack, heroine, meth/ not on crack, heroine, meth...with appendage/ without appendage, but only once a year

we'll make him the Voting Eligibility/Medical Rationing Czar

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's correct CB...Mainstream Johnny will decide the cut off or eligibility point for ...wait ...addicts and addadictome's are two different things right?...well, desn't matter JD will decide who is eligible/not eligible based on habits...educated/not educated enough...ignorant/ not ignorant....on crack, heroine, meth/ not on crack, heroine, meth...with appendage/ without appendage, but only once a year

we'll make him the Voting Eligibility/Medical Rationing Czar

Sounds perfectly good to me.

6 years working city streets as an EMT in Hartford and Boston give you a pretty good perspective on how meth addicts, 22 year olds pregnant with their 5th kid and alcoholics will contribute to society.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Sounds perfectly good to me.

6 years working city streets as an EMT in Hartford and Boston give you a pretty good perspective on how meth addicts, 22 year olds pregnant with their 5th kid and alcoholics will contribute to society.

But Johnny, if those people aren't allowed to vote, your candidates won't get elected. It must be hard being a conservative liberal.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

But Johnny, if those people aren't allowed to vote, your candidates won't get elected. It must be hard being a conservative liberal.

It sucks.