[bam]

What about the small companies with 26 people? Or 30? No tax credits?

[bam]

Per Gallup poll results March 9, 2010:
In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan

[BIRD33]

One thing I want to know is why the legislation wasn't changed to say that federal funds won't be used for abortion? Instead there is a promise of an Executive Order (which I do believe he'll do) to combat that portion of it. The thing about Executive Orders though is that they can be reversed. While I personally believe that you should have the right to choose, I don't believe in taxpayer dollars paying for abortions. That's one of my main concerns.

Because there was never a law that was part of the bill that said funding would go to abortions.Its a red herring the GOP has thrown against the wall to get people against healthcare reform.Think about it.No funding was ever going to abortions but somehow you're worried about it.I wonder what news you listen to?Fair and balanced I'm sure.The executive order was basically a promise that we will never pour money into abortions to sooth the right who were basically claiming that the government was going to start killing babies.I'm with you on no abortion funding from the government too by the way.

[BIRD33]

Per Gallup poll results March 9, 2010:
In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan

As if thats an overwhelming number against it?Ever hear of margin of error?




But with all that bad publicity and all the doubt generated by a year of debate and opponents' vituperation, the latest Gallup Poll showed 48 percent against the bill and 45 percent in favor.

That does not look like overwhelming rejection. In fact, it's within the margin of polling error


Moreover, the 45 percent level of approval was achieved despite the same poll's finding that the respondents believed the bill would only improve health insurance and health care for two groups: those currently uninsured and those with low incomes. Clear majorities of respondents thought everyone else, including doctors and other health professionals and the middle class, would suffer.

Yet even given that impression, more than 4 out of 10 were willing to approve the idea of an overhaul along the lines President Obama has proposed.

What would happen if the bill's image were to improve, even slightly, in the days and weeks ahead? What if the passage, and the proliferation of positive details about the actual bill, were to lift its approval in the Gallup above 50 percent? What would be the primary Republican argument in that case?

Would they say the bill was only popular at 60 percent or 70 percent or more?


http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/20..._heal.html

[bam]

As if thats an overwhelming number against it?Ever hear of margin of error?




But with all that bad publicity and all the doubt generated by a year of debate and opponents' vituperation, the latest Gallup Poll showed 48 percent against the bill and 45 percent in favor.

That does not look like overwhelming rejection. In fact, it's within the margin of polling error


Moreover, the 45 percent level of approval was achieved despite the same poll's finding that the respondents believed the bill would only improve health insurance and health care for two groups: those currently uninsured and those with low incomes. Clear majorities of respondents thought everyone else, including doctors and other health professionals and the middle class, would suffer.

Yet even given that impression, more than 4 out of 10 were willing to approve the idea of an overhaul along the lines President Obama has proposed.

What would happen if the bill's image were to improve, even slightly, in the days and weeks ahead? What if the passage, and the proliferation of positive details about the actual bill, were to lift its approval in the Gallup above 50 percent? What would be the primary Republican argument in that case?

Would they say the bill was only popular at 60 percent or 70 percent or more?


http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/20..._heal.html

In fact, yes, I have heard of the margin of error. It is plus or minus 4% either way in this particular poll. All I'm saying is that either way, it's close.

[BIRD33]

In fact, yes, I have heard of the margin of error. It is plus or minus 4% either way in this particular poll. All I'm saying is that either way, it's close.

Would you agree that once people get a better handle on whats in the bill that the % for the health care bill could go up?You've demonstrated in this thread with your abortion comments that a lot of misinformation is out there and is skewing things in a negative light.

[bam]

It could go up and it could go down. I have no idea.

Can you explain Section 1303 to me? It's about Abortion Services. The way I'm reading it, there are prohibitions as well as allowances for abortion to be federally funded.

[Anhil8tor]

One thing you can bank upon...


Your take home pay just went down and the middle class will suffer greatly.

[bam]

I don't know if the middle class will end up paying for it immediately, but I'm sure we'll be paying for it soon enough.

[BIRD33]

You shit birds.The middle class has been the one absorbing the 20+% yearly increase per year in health care costs already.I love how you all make blanket statements buy offer zero facts to back it up.

[bam]

Yes, I believe health care needs to be reformed. Am I sure that this is the way to do it or not? No, I'm not certain either way. I just haven't quite figured out how it's my responsibility to shell out part of my paycheck- the paycheck I (and no one else) worked for- to pay for things for other people- many of whom are not working by choice.

[bam]

What do you mean by you all?

[BIRD33]

It could go up and it could go down. I have no idea.

Can you explain Section 1303 to me? It's about Abortion Services. The way I'm reading it, there are prohibitions as well as allowances for abortion to be federally funded.

I think its referring to the cases where abortion is covered due to rape, incest or threat of the mother dying.Thats not wholesale abortions across the board being covered.

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

[BIRD33]

Yes, I believe health care needs to be reformed. Am I sure that this is the way to do it or not? No, I'm not certain either way. I just haven't quite figured out how it's my responsibility to shell out part of my paycheck- the paycheck I (and no one else) worked for- to pay for things for other people- many of whom are not working by choice.

I get where you're coming from but you were ALREADY paying for people who don't work and your insurance bills ALREADY go up because of that.

Many you foot the bill for arent not working by choice.You saw that disgraceful video of those tea partiers in Ohio who were throwing dollars at a guy who couldnt work or get insurance due to parkinsons right?What about those people who can't get health care due to preexisting conditions and can't work?Tough shit I guess?

[bam]

I get where you're coming from but you were ALREADY paying for people who don't work and your insurance bills ALREADY go up because of that.

Many you foot the bill for arent not working by choice.You saw that disgraceful video of those tea partiers in Ohio who were throwing dollars at a guy who couldnt work or get insurance due to parkinsons right?What about those people who can't get health care due to preexisting conditions and can't work?Tough shit I guess?

I have a pre-existing condition called aplastic anemia. It's an expensive disease to have so I understand where those folks are coming from. I truly do. I, at this point, could sell my house 3 times over and not be out of medical debt. Granted, I have no other debt, but I have my fair share of medical debt. Am I supposed to be working? No, I'm not. My hematologist wants me on social security and has wanted me on social security for the past -almost- 3 years, but instead I choose to work. I understand that some people aren't able to work and they have my sympathy. I have a mentally handicapped sister who is unable to work due to mental and physical conditions. She doesn't receive any government assistance. My family takes care of her needs- both financially and medically. And yes, I understand a lot of families aren't in a position where they can do that. I just don't see how free handouts without any type of "term limit" is going to make people more self-sufficient or to motivate them to do better for themselves and their families.

As I said, I don't think the current health care system is working and I'm not sure about the reform yet. I'll have to wait and see what my opinion is on it.

[bam]

I think its referring to the cases where abortion is covered due to rape, incest or threat of the mother dying.Thats not wholesale abortions across the board being covered.

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I don't think federal funds should be used for abortions, regardless of the reason for the abortion. All three of those scenarios (for lack of a better term) suck. My pregnancy with my daughter was accidental. I have a life threatening illness and was never supposed to become pregnant. 50% of women who have aplastic anemia (per the one study that has ever been done on that issue) that get pregnant end up dying during pregnancy or shortly thereafter. Not very good odds.

As far as rape and incest- I won't go into those much, but there are people out there who adopt children. People that can't have children who are more than willing to take a child into their homes and provide them with a good life.

As I said before, I believe every woman has a right to choose and I won't frown on them for making the choice that is right for them. I still don't believe- no matter the circumstance- that it should be federally funded.

[phantom]

What they'll be working on next is replacing the voters they've lost with 15 million wetbacks.

[BIRD33]

I don't think federal funds should be used for abortions, regardless of the reason for the abortion. All three of those scenarios (for lack of a better term) suck. My pregnancy with my daughter was accidental. I have a life threatening illness and was never supposed to become pregnant. 50% of women who have aplastic anemia (per the one study that has ever been done on that issue) that get pregnant end up dying during pregnancy or shortly thereafter. Not very good odds.

As far as rape and incest- I won't go into those much, but there are people out there who adopt children. People that can't have children who are more than willing to take a child into their homes and provide them with a good life.

As I said before, I believe every woman has a right to choose and I won't frown on them for making the choice that is right for them. I still don't believe- no matter the circumstance- that it should be federally funded.

I'm not sure how you can't get behind a woman having an abortion if her life was threatened.Whatever thats your personal opinion.Its a tough call and I doubt theres an answer that satisfies everyone.

I don't get your pro death penalty stance when you compare it to your pretty strict abortion stance.A lifes a life.

[BIRD33]

What they'll be working on next is replacing the voters they've lost with 15 million wetbacks.

This is why the republican party is going backwards.

[bam]

I'm not sure how you can't get behind a woman having an abortion if her life was threatened.Whatever thats your personal opinion.Its a tough call and I doubt theres an answer that satisfies everyone.

I don't get your pro death penalty stance when you compare it to your pretty strict abortion stance.A lifes a life.

I'm not sure what part you missed, but if you look back I said I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion. I do have a problem with taxpayer dollars paying for it.

I agree- a life is a life. My stance on abortion isn't strict. It's the choice of each person. It just shouldn't be federally funded is all.