scaeagles, I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the CBO estimates. I'm not gleaning them from their website, but the news about deficit reduction figures - especially in the later stages - was very widespread and, as I pointed out, what gave so many Dems cover enough to finally vote in favor.


Also, are you confusing Executive Order with Signing Statement? The latter is what Bush abused and Obama objected to. Executive Orders are perfectly legit (as long as they aren't issued to circumvent the law). I'm pretty sure it was an Executive Order Obama pledged to issue on the abortion question.


I hate to get into that, but I hope it's still the bullsh!t option you complained of. Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure. There's no legitimate role for the federal government to deny coverage for one legal procedure over another, simply because some people object to it. It's legal. That would be like people objecting to tobacco crops being included in a farm subsidy plan.

I don't think any Congressperson was "fooled" by Obama's pledge - but I wish it were so.

Anticipating his response, at least in part - that's a state issue not a federal one.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, and because I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue, there is the question of elective vs. necessary.

I don't think anyone is outraged that the proposed insurance plans do not cover cosmetic surgeries, yet those are perfectly legal.

At what point is an abortion considered elective? Is "a child would be inconvenient" enough of to consider it necessary? Where is the line drawn that says, "On this side an abortion is medically necessary, and on this side it is an elective procedure."

I'm personally having difficulty deciding where I'd draw the line. I'm pretty okay with Hyde as currently written. And the cries from opponents of this reform that this will lead to rampant elective abortions are absurd. But there are people who are arguing that even Hyde is too restrictive, that there should essentially all abortions should be covered, and that I can't agree with.

GD, I was surprised during this whole debate to find that abortions are covered at all - because I presumed they were considered elective. Apparently, not so.

So the issue is, if insurance companies cover a legal procedure as a medical necessity, who is the federal government to decide that particular legal procedure should be singled out for exclusion?

And NA, also anticipating Leo's response and elaborating on GD's - with auto insurance, you are free to not buy it ... and not drive. You will have no such opt out of medical insurance. You will be required to buy it in the same way you are required to pre-pay your income taxes before they are due (in that both happen to be, imo, unconstitutional - but you have to do it anyway or face big trouble).

If people without medical insurance are 100% responsible for their bills (and they aren't pawned off on the taxpayer) then I have no issue with not forcing people to buy medical insurance. Since that won't happen everyone should be forced to contribute something to get some sort of coverage or pay an opt out fine and stay the hell out of the emergency rooms and don't seek doctors care if you can't afford to pay the bill.

As it is, there will still be people without insurance. The homeless and illegal aliens (who rightfully so this new policy does not cover - if you're not here legally you shouldn't get access to our programs) are two groups off the top of my head.

1) One can opt not to drive......

2) The requirement for car insurance is more about protecting the other drivers on the road.......protection for yourself is usually optional(at least it is in my state).

3) Why is it liberals(and I say that lovingly as per your earlier statements:D ) point out the places where government has totally swirled itself into our lives as proof that more encroachments won't hurt? To me this is like saying "well, I've already polished off a tray of lasagna, half a loaf of french bread, a whole banana cream pie, and 3 milkshakes, why not go to taco bell for 4th meal?"

It's shifted around a bit. Hyde was passed right after Roe v. Wade was decided. It was initially written to prevent Medicare from covering abortions except in cases of health risk to the mother, rape, and incest. It was later rewritten to remove the health risk exception. And then again rewritten to remove the rape and incest exception. But in 1993, those exceptions were written back in and that's where we stand now.

And this is news... How?

Let me flip that. Why do conservatives insist that any government program = a direct path to a totalitarian regime that will strip you of all private property and liberties?

Or, to elaborate further, and to actually answer your question, it's to counter act the argument that "this is a socialist program, therefore it is by definition evil." Whether there are reasons this specific socialist program is bad is indeed a question that should be up for debate, however much of the opposition never goes further than "It's a government takeover!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills!!!" And when arguing that point, yes, pointing out socialist programs that exist, work, and are considered by no one to be evil is a valid counter, and disproves the argument.