House Passes Health Reform, But Without Reproductive Rights

The U.S. House of Representatives answered "the call of history" put to it by President Obama Saturday and voted 220-215 in favor of the most sweeping expansion of health-care coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid Act of 1965.

House Democrats burst into sustained applause at 11:08 EST as the majority-making 218th vote was cast in favor of the the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

The measure ultimately received the votes of 219 Democrats.

Only one Republican, Louisiana's Joseph Cao, supported it. (Cao, who represents an overwhelmingly-Democratic district dominated by the city of New Orleans, frequently breaks with the GOP leadership. He was one of the few Republicans who was seriously lobbied by the White House and Democratic leaders in the House, and it worked.)

Thirty-nine Democrats joined 176 Republicans in rejecting reforms that polls suggest are broadly supported by Americans.

A handful of "no" votes came from Democrats who felt that the legislation promoted by the Obama administration and House leaders was an inadequate response to the health care crisis. Among the progressive "no" voters was Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, a leading proponent of a single-payer "Medicare for All" system that would replace private insurance companies with a public program.

Said Kucinich:

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

The reform plan shepherded through the House by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is indeed flawed, as even the speaker acknowledges.

But it dramatically expands options for the tens of millions of Americans who are not currently covered by private insurers.

That was enough for Pelosi, who accepted what was for her a bitter compromise on the issue of abortion in order to secure the votes needed to pass the measure.

Late Saturday night, the speaker announced that her chamber had indeed "made history" with its endorsement of the reform plan.

Epic depictions of the House vote were commonplace Saturday, as Democrats compared their measure with historic legislation of the past.

"This is an historic moment for our nation. House passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, marks the first step toward ensuring health care for all Americans," said Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who helped craft the legislation as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "I truly believe that we'll look back years from now and view the passage of this Act to be as significant as the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 and the Medicare and Medicaid Act in 1965."

In truth, the House merely wrote a first draft of history.

The Senate still must act on a very different reform proposal.

The House and Senate bills then must be reconciled, after which they will have to be approved once more by each chamber. Only after those final votes will the Obama have a chance to sign a health reform bill.

It will not be a quick or easy process, as was evident Saturday.

Before the House vote, Democratic representatives heard a "now is the time to finish the job" pep talk from Obama, which helped to achieve relative unity within a caucus that wrangled to the last minute over issues ranging from abortion to immigration to cost estimates for the $1 trillion bill.

Late Friday and early Saturday, bitter battling over the hot-button issue of abortion fight came close to derailing the debate.

House Democratic leaders were pressured by several dozen anti-choice Democrats to add language preventing federal funds from paying for abortions. To get the votes she needed, Pelosi found herself in the ugly position of bartering off assurances that low-income women would have access to reproductive health services.

The tortured final negotiations put serious cracks in Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state, as abortion foes such as Pennsylvania Democrat Jason Altmire openly acknowledged that they would not vote for health-care reform legislation unless they were told it was appropriate to do so by Catholic bishops in their home districts.

Pro-choice Democrats, led by Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette, pushed back.

That created a stalemate that Pelosi sought to break by allowing a vote on an amendment to establish limits on the funding of abortions within the new framework that would be established by the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Pro-choice Democrats opposed the amendment, with Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, the co-chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus, urging her colleagues to vote against the move to restrict a woman's right to chose and force many women to pay more their insurance.

Said Schakowsky:

This amendment goes far beyond current law which already bans the use of federal funding for abortions. It goes far beyond the language already in this bill that guarantees no federal dollars are used for abortion. This amendment says that a woman CANNOT purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars; middle class women, using exclusively their own money will be prohibited from purchasing a plan including abortion coverage in every single public OR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLAN in the new health care exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers only abortion – a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman anticipates needing an abortion. This amendment is a radical departure from current law and will result in millions of women losing coverage they already have.

This health reform bill is about improving access to care, not further restricting a woman's right to choose. Our bill is about lowering health care costs for millions of women and their families, not further marginalizing women by forcing them to pay more for their care. This amendment is a back door way of overturning Roe v. Wade; it is a disservice and insult to millions of women throughout our country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Despite Schakowsky's appropriately impassioned argument, the amendment was approved on a vote of 240 to 194. Sixty-four Democrats voted with 176 Republicans to attach the amendment that De Gette condemned as "the greatest restriction of a woman's right to choose" passed by Congress "in our career."

"Party of 'No'" opposition to reform was such that even pro-choice Republicans joined their anti-choice colleagues in a fully-unified GOP vote for the amendment.

The abortion fight, like a battle over restrictions on the coverage of immigrants that particularly upset members of the Hispanic Caucus, made Saturday a difficult and at times uncertain day for Pelosi and her lieutenants.

But Obama was confident enough to expend political capital on a calm, yet effective, appeal for Democratic unity.

The president made a classic "no bill can ever contain everything that everybody wants" appeal for what the vast majority of House Democrats agreed was -- despite its less-than-robust public option and the ugly compromise of abortion rights -- an imperfect-but-necessary piece of legislation.

Said Obama:

The bill that the House has produced will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don't; and lower costs for American families and American businesses. And as I've insisted from the beginning, it is a bill that is fully paid for and will actually reduce our long-term federal deficit.

This bill is change that the American people urgently need. Don't just take my word for it. Consider the national groups who've come out in support of this bill on behalf of their members: The Consumers Union supports it because it will create -- and I quote -- "a more secure, affordable health care system for the American people."

The American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association support it on behalf of doctors and nurses and medical professionals who know firsthand what's broken in our current system, and who see what happens when their patients can't get the care they need because of insurance industry bureaucracies.

The National Farmers Union supports this bill because it will control costs for farmers and ranchers, and address the unique challenges rural Americans face when it comes to receiving quality care.

And the AARP supports it because it will achieve the goal for which the AARP has been fighting for decades -- reducing the cost of health care, expanding coverage for America's seniors, and strengthening Medicare for the long haul.

Now, no bill can ever contain everything that everybody wants, or please every constituency and every district. That's an impossible task. But what is possible, what's in our grasp right now is the chance to prevent a future where every day 14,000 Americans continue to lose their health insurance, and every year 18,000 Americans die because they don't have it; a future where crushing costs keep small businesses from succeeding and big businesses from competing in the global economy; a future where countless dreams are deferred or scaled back because of a broken system we could have fixed when we had the chance.

What we can do right now is choose a better future and pass a bill that brings us to the very cusp of building what so many generations of Americans have sought to build -- a better health care system for this country.

Most House progressives accepted the "what-we-can-do-right-now" line as a reasonable one.

California Congressman Pete Stark, a senior Democrat who has advocated for decades on behalf of replacing the current for-profit scheme with a "Medicare for All" system, summed up progressive sentiments when he explained why he was voting for a measure that was far weaker than he would have preferred.

"At my age," said Stark, "I've learned to take what you can, when you can get it."

Comments (275)

1. We are already organizing to evict from Congress in 2010 Democrats who vote for this tyranny. I know there are Dems in safe scocialist districts. But we can get 50-60 out at least and that will be sufficient to make them pay for this assault on the Constitution.

   this outrage that calls itself healthcare reform is an assault on the freedom of Americans. Threatening them with huge fines and prison if they refuse to pay for health insurance.

   Not to mention the huge tax increases, first on the wealthy, then by necessity, on the middle class.

   This is a shameful day in US history because of these Democrats and anyone who sides with their tyranny.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/07/2009 @ 7:44pm

2. Yeah, it's always...awesome...when the House triumphantly passes something virtually every opinion poll in the country has a majority of Americans disapproving of.

   First Tuesday of next November, people. It's later than you think.

   Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/07/2009 @ 7:46pm

3. Astonishing that GOP trolls (above) are posting here. Or is it being pasted on progressive sites everywhere?

   Posted by Chrisblue at 11/07/2009 @ 8:18pm

4. CNN poll dated November 1, 2009: "Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?" Favor: 55%, Oppose 44%, Unsure 1%

   Posted by jarshadow at 11/07/2009 @ 8:39pm

5. As it stands it will not pass.

   Once people read it, its pitch fork and torches time for the dems.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 11/07/2009 @ 8:52pm

6. PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats' Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail Friday, November 06, 2009

   Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

   In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: "This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately."

   Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

   "H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax." [page 1]

   - - - - - - - - - -

   "If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…" [page 2]

   - - - - - - - - - -

   Posted by YourJomamma at 11/07/2009 @ 8:55pm

7. Criminal penalties

   Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

   • Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

   • Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]

   When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

   "The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi's decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare," said Camp.

   According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker's bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 11/07/2009 @ 8:55pm

8. Ralph was right.

   Posted by kparcell at 11/07/2009 @ 9:34pm

9. There's a combination of things happening here.

   First of all, the far left is using HC reform as an excuse to enact more entitlements that people who are here illegally and those who are useless to society think, for some reason, that they have coming while they move the country toward socialism and eventually to communism. Also, several democrats on the extreme are caught up in the heat of the moment and actually think that they are presenting some earth shattering piece of legislation that they will go down in history favorably for. Nothing could be further from the truth.

   In any event, in the unlikely event that this monstrosity, by some miracle, gets past the Senate, it will be challenged and presented to the Supreme Court, who will have no choice but to strike it down as unconstitutional, and extremely so.

   There are noble points from both sides that should be combined in real meaningful health care reform, not the least of which should include tort reform.

   This bill is do or die for the democrats. If they do not pass it in some form, they will be seen as totally inept and ineffective. They know that this is their absolute last chance. They have their President, they have control all the important committes and they think, however misguided, that they have some kind of mandate.

   They are damned if they do and damned if they don't because if they pass this bill, there will be a massacre on election day 2010, the likes of which they've never seen before. If they don't pass it, they're through anyway.

   Obama keeps saying this is our moment. The question is, who is our? It certainly isn't the majority of Americans. So who? I think we all know the answer to that.

   Kill this bill.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/07/2009 @ 9:57pm

10. I think that if the final version of the bill passes with any sort of funding for abortions using taxpayers money, then there should be a major tax revolt. All Americans who are against publicly funded abortions should withold payment of their income tax and present a united front on moral grounds and file class action suits against the government. No American should be forced to have one penny of their money used for abortions against their moral will. Nothing could be more unconstitutional.

    The entire process being foisted upon Americans by this rogue Congress should not be allowed to stand. Anyone who is not paying attention while their freedoms are being assualted should be ashamed of themselves. If this bill passes, expect the Tea Party to increase it's ranks a hundredfold.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/07/2009 @ 10:04pm

11. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/07/2009 @ 10:04pm

    "expect the Tea Party to increase it's ranks a hundredfold"

    Yes, and the Dems along with the MSM will try to detour that movement by creating racial antagonism. That's what the attempt to put ACORN in control of the census was about. Naked helter skelter.

    Next, they will attempt to naturalize millions of new citizens that they hope they can keep ghettoized and dependent in order to hold on to their majority. This could easily backfire, as the Mexicans are decent people, and generally conservative.

    We need to boot the leftists, but we MUST keep a vigilant eye on our own house. By abandoning parts of the southwest to the drug cartels and spitting on the graves of murdered soldiers they are praying that the true fringe elements of the right will come unhinged and give them their Reichstag fire.

    We cannot allow that to happen. We must be as steadfast in self-evaluation as we are in opposition to the Left's power grab. Wall Street set the table for them, as the Tsars did for the Bolsheviks. There will be agent provocateurs, so we MUST have the discipline of soldiers.

    Posted by gangpapist at 11/07/2009 @ 10:27pm

12. Hey, the idiot trolls don't like it. It must be a good bill then.

    Posted by whateverblah at 11/07/2009 @ 10:47pm

13. The bill has numerous laudable features--although it is difficult to discern them given the reluctance of the powers that be to allow the people to see it--yet, the coercive aspects loom large and are very worrisome. Certain factions of the left have historically worked for human freedom and the liberation of the human personality from baleful, coercive forces, be they private (such as corporations) or public (government) or more abstract (abject want). This bill absolutely does not represent that spirit of freedom and emancipation. Instead, it wields the sword of state in an oppressive manner. The Pelosi Prisonhouse Bill deserves to be defeated and replaced with more humane, more effective, and much less coercive legislation to reform health care.

    Posted by feinfein at 11/07/2009 @ 10:52pm

14. The first thing we need to find out is who are the democrats in red states and in other states who voted for this bill against the wishes of their constituency. Their names should be made public and announced on talk radio and on Fox so that voters can come out next November and run them out of office.

    This is a very bad bill. It is not paid for and it will not improve health care as advertised. If it gets through the Senate in its present form it will be a miracle.

    Also, even though the amentment eliminating funds for abortion was passed, that does not preclude these criminals from adding the language back before it is presented to the Senate.

    Pelosi and the dems are crowing and patting themselves on the back. I hope they enjoy this night and their fifteen minutes of fame on the Sunday talk shows because come next spring, they are going to be in the fight of their lives.

    They took very good care of the lawyers, neglected the elderly and robbed Americans of their freedom of choice just to give away more of our hard earned money. The rich are not the only ones who will be paying for this disaster. Judgement cannot come soon enough for these charletans.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/07/2009 @ 10:55pm

15. Congratulations is grudgingly in order......Pelosi actually finagled a yea vote out of her sheeps!

    But as NICHOLS remind: "In truth, the House merely wrote a first draft of history."

    Isn't there another "first draft of history" dealing with tinkering w/Mother Nature somewhere?

    The top leadership of the Dem Party is determined to milk this Crisis.......we'll see if this pay off for them next November!

    Posted by Happy at 11/07/2009 @ 10:58pm

16. Conservative media and pundits will now have fresh materials to work with.....some 2,000 pages' worth....yipee!

    Posted by Happy at 11/07/2009 @ 11:01pm

17. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/07/2009 @ 10:55pm

    Just don't forget that they will fiendishly promote all kinds of malaise to deflect judgment from themselves. We have to withstand their denigration, and it will be furious, and not respond in kind.

    Posted by gangpapist at 11/07/2009 @ 11:08pm

18. 385 days and counting. Now that I also have the time I'm also energized by this "betrayal" of our public trust in elected representatives and possibly the senators to devote the remaining days to see that not ONE elected Demoncrat remains in office in D.C.! Time to set our goals high and take back our nation as this is the "last straw".

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/07/2009 @ 11:22pm

19. I am so thrilled, that those nuts couldn't kill, this fabulous bill, but instead got chilled, with the Dems' zeal and will....

    Posted by Frank42 at 11/08/2009 @ 12:35am

20. Astonishing that GOP trolls (above) are posting here. Or is it being pasted on progressive sites everywhere? Posted by Chrisblue at 11/07/2009 @ 8:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    It is indeed a historic vote with a fair amount of theatrics. A huge legislative win for the Dems. The bill isnt as progressive as it could be or needed to be, but it is a step towards greater equaliberty and that is always welcome. A favorite provision of mine is this: "In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation." Corporatists take that. Let's not forget the public option that passed too, which I expected would pass from the House.

    Posted by hdthoreau at 11/08/2009 @ 12:53am

21. Astonishing that GOP trolls (above) are posting here. Or is it being pasted on progressive sites everywhere? Posted by Chrisblue at 11/07/2009 @ 8:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    It is indeed a historic vote with a fair amount of theatrics. A huge legislative win for the Dems. The bill isnt as progressive as it could be or needed to be, but it is a step towards greater equaliberty and that is always welcome. A favorite provision of mine is this: "In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation." Corporatists take that. Let's not forget the public option that passed too, which I expected would pass from the House.

    Posted by hdthoreau at 11/08/2009 @ 12:53am

22. Not "socialist" enough!

    Baby-steps... next term, we want full coverage to all.

    Posted by malmassa at 11/08/2009 @ 01:00am

23. I'm still amazed how you folks think creating a government monopoly is the answer.

    Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars given to Wall Street and spent on public boondoggles while unemployment grows. Billions funneled into our failing education system and the result? People like you who think this bill has merit. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security all ponzi schemes. The US dollar is 100% fiat...

    Fascinating to me to watch the democrats blatantly buy your vote from you with your own money. If this unconstitutional bill ever becomes law, I think you'll all be surprised just how expensive "free" health insurance really costs.

    Haha, just kidding. You'll never figure it out.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/08/2009 @ 01:14am

24. Not "socialist" enough! Baby-steps... next term, we want full coverage to all. Posted by malmassa at 11/08/2009 @ 01:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Paul Krugman's blog had a great post on the essence of your post on October 22, 2009.

    "The irreversibility of reform Aha. Somehow I missed this poll of Massachusetts residents on the state's health-care reform. Interesting and important stuff.

    What you need to know here is that Mass. is widely regarded as an example of how not to do reform: it's a cobbled-together plan, with inadequate funding and poor cost controls. Conservatives have claimed that the plan is deeply unpopular -- basing their views on, yes, a Rasmussen poll. Liberals have held up Massachusetts as a cautionary tale: pass a reform that isn't really good, and the public will turn sour on the whole thing.

    But what the poll actually finds is that public support for the plan is holding up pretty well, given the political environment. And what's really telling is this finding:

    The poll found that 79 percent of those surveyed wanted the law to continue, though a majority said there should be some changes, with cost reductions cited as the single most important change that needs to be made.

    Only 11 percent of state residents favored repealing the law, similar to last year's finding. What this suggests is that the really important thing, for reformers, is to get the principle of universality established. Once that happens, there's no going back."

    So, you can be sure to expect even more reforms. Now, that won't cheer up all those who support corporate monopolies but progressive politics never does.

    Posted by hdthoreau at 11/08/2009 @ 01:59am

25. Conservative Christians do not have the right to impose their religious views on me or any other woman. The restriction on abortion rights is a travesty.

    Posted by lindaebrewer at 11/08/2009 @ 04:02am

26. The uneducated masses that put these people in power to devour individual liberties ought to be ASHAMED! Too many good men fought for INDIVIDUAL freedom to let this unconstitutional mandate from government stand.

    Learn from History!

    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial." - Justice Louis Brandeis US Supreme Court

    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

    Patrick Henry American Patriot

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

    In defense of freedom, Freedom2be

    Posted by freedom2be at 11/08/2009 @ 04:21am

27. Posted by gangpapist at 11/07/2009 @ 10:27pm |

    GP, it's amusing that you can't see that Dick Armey's Army ARE the 'agents provocateurs', but best of luck with that 'discipline'.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 06:09am

28. "Now, no bill can ever contain everything that everybody wants, or please every constituency and every district. That's an impossible task. But what is possible, what's in our grasp right now is the chance to..."

    ...piss off everyone on both sides of the debate with a watered-down, anti-abortion, insurance industry market-growth initiative that will rob people like Anti of their right-to-be-stupid and won't bend any cost curves in the right direction.

    If you're going to take heat for passing healthcare reform, at least have the decency to write a bill that's worth the trouble you bring.

    Speaker Plushy can clap herself on the back until her arm falls out of socket, but the Dems have once again squandered an opportunity while they HAD the majority.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 06:22am

29. Being robbed by monopoly insurers isn't a tax, but it might as well be - 4% and climbing. No wonder my 'moderate' Repub senators are opposing the public option so staunchly; introducing competition to Maine will undoubtedly shrink the insurer's profit margin and dry up the 'campaign contributions' with which the profiteers have bought our 'moderates'.

    I can't wait to sign up for the public option, and my employer can't wait either. Finally, private employers will be able to compete with the public sector for skilled employees. And workers are finally able to start businesses of our own without giving up medical coverage.

    If helping small private employers cut costs is socialism, then what's 'free enterprise'? More oligopolies robbing the public?

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/08/2009 @ 06:27am

30. According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker's bill would cost $15,000 in 2016. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/07/2009 @ 8:55pm |

    I see you're quoting Betsy the Lying Shill too. Would you care to link to any authoritative source stating this?

    I've looked on the CBO website and have only found cost estimates as relates to the federal budget.

    From what dank crevice were these numbers pulled?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 06:37am

31. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/07/2009 @ 9:57pm |

    "There are noble points from both sides that should be combined in real meaningful health care reform, not the least of which should include tort reform."

    <CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical malpractice liability--which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance--will total approximately $35 billion, or ABOUT 2 PERCENT of total health care expenditures. Typical proposals have included: lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by ABOUT 0.2 percent.>

    Slinger, please get thyself a clue.

    A 0.2 - 2 percent savings, while jeopardizing the rights of people who may have a perfectly legitimate need to sue a shoddy physician, is a waste of time and your breath.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 06:40am

32. From what dank crevice were these numbers pulled? Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 06:37am |

    "Seek and ye shall find", as the man said...

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/ 106xx/doc10691/hr3962SubsidiesRangelLtr.pdf

    <Under the House bill, the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for the reference plan in 2013 would range from 1.5 percent for those with income less than or equal to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 12 percent for those with income equal to 400 percent of the FPL.>

    133% of FPL ($14k indiv...$29k for a family of 4)...(which is eligible for Medicaid anyway)...are capped at ~2% of income or $280/yr for individuals or $580/yr for the family.

    400% of FPL ($43,200 for indiv...$88k for the fam)...would be capped at ~13% or $5600/yr for the indiv...$11,400 for the family of 4.

    Consider that the estimated cost of the family of 4 for private health insurance is projected to be $24k/yr.

    <Enrollees with income below 350 percent of the FPL would also be given cost-sharing subsidies to raise the actuarial value of their coverage to specified levels--ranging from 97 percent for those with income below 150 percent of the FPL to 72 percent for those with income between 300 percent and 350 percent of the FPL.>

    So if you make < $35k as an indiv or < $77k for the family, you also have your out-of-pocket costs capped.

    Nice FUD, cons.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 07:09am

33. Other interesting sidenote:

    In Alaska, the poverty threshold is ~30% higher than the rest of the US.

    Why is that Sarah?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 07:26am

34. ..F R A U D... After giving up concessions to insure their next golf junket they try to make a big deal of doing nothing.. ..Women's healthcare doesn't count ?.? ...BUT don't worry the Senate will tie it up and vote it down ( end of round one ) The dog and pony show is being run by professionals... ..PLEASE NOTE - there is no discussion of ending the healthcare anti-trust exemption.... ... ...I will repeat what I've been saying - for effective change in healthcare "REVOKE THE HEALTHCARE OF THE POLITICIANS"

    Posted by bbednarz at 11/08/2009 @ 07:34am

35. Here is something I find amazing and puzzling. Since no Republicans voted for this bill, and they were never going to vote for this bill, the "Victory" was a victory of Democrats over Democrats. Given the Democrats solid majority in the house, why did this take so long and more importantly why was it so close? The reason it was so close is because once the minimum number of votes for were secured the Democrats at risk for re-election were allowed to vote against their principals in favor of re-election. For the Democrats to have any validity with this, Congress MUST be made to participate in the public option. The Democrats suck.

    Posted by wredner at 11/08/2009 @ 08:05am

36. Conservative Christians do not have the right to impose their religious views on me or any other woman. The restriction on abortion rights is a travesty.

    Posted by lindaebrewer at 11/08/2009 @ 04:02am

    Yes, but it is apparently okay to use government to force them to pay taxes that will fund abortions, right?

    So who's imposing what on who here?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/08/2009 @ 08:16am

37. In the headline, "reform" is the word that should be in quotes.

    -- lifelong Democrat who thinks enforcing people to buy expensive healthcare insurance they cannot afford is akin to fascism

    Posted by Citizen54 at 11/08/2009 @ 08:37am

38. My comment to the conservatives of all stripes that post here. Let's look at things historically.The British and King George screwed their "colonies" economically.The slaveholders of the South screwed their slaves figuretively and economically.The great robber barons who brought on the Great Depression screwed the American people economically.The modern day robber barons(united Health,Blue Cross)are screwing the American people economically.You guys support them instead of health care reform because you don't care about the American people. You hide behind ideology that you don't understand. You use terms that you tailor to your needs. That is O.K. with me because you just don't get it. Democrats won't get voted out by you fools that have narrow viewpoints. They will be voted out because they act like and allow people that represent your narrow viewpoints to buy their vote.You are in the minority and have not had an upsurge in popularity. Indeed Obama will be more popular if he figures out how to take a stand.Progressives should all send him a page from Webster's dictionary with the page that contains"change".Then he would realize that it is time to focus.Time to move forward and change the stranglehold corporations have on our society.We need the Democrats to remember that.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 08:44am

39. I watched the vote with an increasing sense of foreboding. For the first time in my life I knew the meaning of the trite little phrase, "hoping against hope", for an honest outcome. I'm still overwhelmed by the size of the corruption that has taken over our government. Why do the members of congress still give cover to those who have sold their votes to corporate interests with stupid excuses as "They have deep felt concerns about the deficit." or, "They have morally felt convictions". when the simple truth is they are owned by Wall Street. Last nights vote hasn't convince me we will ever see health care reform see the light of day.

    Posted by julien38 at 11/08/2009 @ 08:48am

40. Yes, but it is apparently okay to use government to force them to pay taxes that will fund abortions, right?

    So who's imposing what on who here?

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/08/2009 @ 08:16am

    At least abortion is legal. For the past nine years, my taxes have funded the illegal conquest and occupation of Iraq.

    Posted by richcarl at 11/08/2009 @ 08:54am

41. As usual, Kucinich is the only one who speaks truth to power. The rest is Bulls*t.

    Posted by kparcell at 11/08/2009 @ 08:55am

42. At least abortion is legal. For the past nine years, my taxes have funded the illegal conquest and occupation of Iraq.

    Posted by richcarl at 11/08/2009 @ 08:54am

    Sorry, technically, Iraq was only funded for the past seven years or so.

    Posted by richcarl at 11/08/2009 @ 08:57am

43. Posted by wredner at 11/08/2009 @ 08:05am |

    "Since no Republicans voted for this bill, and they were never going to vote for this bill,..."

    <Only one Republican, Louisiana's Joseph Cao, supported it. >

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 08:57am

44. ut the Dems have once again squandered an opportunity while they HAD the majority. Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 06:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

    they may have the majority, but they still needed to convince stray dems. half a loaf...

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 09:09am

45. Ya, what a courageous repub Cao is, would that there were more repubs like him.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 09:30am

46. Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 09:09am |

    More like half a lifeboat.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 09:31am

47. Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 09:30am |

    I'm not so sure....he's probably going to get Scozzafava'd (how quickly nouns are verb'd these days).

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 09:32am

48. First, "Pro-Life" idea do not depend on religious viewpoints, itis enuf to care about PEOPLE.

    Second, the health care bill is deeply flawed. The infividual insurance mandate is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Would the entire rotten structure collapse with a Supreme Court ruling?

    There is still time to repeal the mistakes, or correct the entire health care project.

    However the final result evolves, it will be driven by the concerns of the voters,

    John D. Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 11/08/2009 @ 09:33am

49. This vote is a good example of the difference between Repubs and Dems. Repubs fall into line to avoid losing the 'speaking fees', 'investment opportunities', 'campaign contribution' and other bribes with which the profiteers reward their apparatchiks. Dems like Kucinich can dissent on principle and still get re-elected, serve on committees etc.

    How sad, though, to see genuine rank-and-file conservatives duped once again by the profiteers. We'll never have 'limited government' or 'libertarianism' as long as the Repub apparat can enrich itself on an ever-expanding war economy and police state.

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/08/2009 @ 09:34am

50. Finally, private employers will be able to compete with the public sector for skilled employees. And workers are finally able to start businesses of our own without giving up medical coverage.

    If helping small private employers cut costs is socialism, then what's 'free enterprise'? More oligopolies robbing the public?

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/08/2009 @ 06:27am

    Fascinating!

    You are that rare bird who thinks the public sector have the higher "skilled employees"! No wonder you trust the Gubbers and think the people are helpless.....ROTFLMAO!

    On-topic: I had paid little attention to the content of this 2,000-page "draft of history" but it appears, you paid even less!

    There is NO free coverage, based on what little I know. And start-up businesses are NOT exempt if their payroll exceeds some modest level (I think $500k).

    What will it take for Libs to realize nobody's costs will be cut? What will it take for you to realize costs are front-loaded, benefits (over first 10 years ONLY) delayed just to keep the cost at $1 TRILLION?

    IF something like this actually becomes Law, look for UNemployment to approach 15% in 2~3 years! Many, many companies will look to outsource as much as they can as they digest the steep and very real costs being layered on top of their payroll over the coming years!

    Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 09:49am

51. bigpasture-The right will not vote to take America back.The right will vote for the same old politicians that you always vote for and nothing will change and the power will remain Washington DC.You partisan people are the problem.You just keep voting in the same politicians and then expect things to change.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 09:51am

52. NICHOLS @ 9:11am: "The U.S. House of Representatives answered "the call of history"...and voted 220-215..."

    Posted by hdthoreau at 11/08/2009 @ 12:53am: "....A huge legislative win for the Dems....."

    It's pretty clear the Kool-aid drinkers' hurdle for measuring successes have been lowered, as required under Affirmative Action......"huge" win is now defined as "220-215" with the winning Party enjoying a 79 seat majority!

    That's the kind of "Win" we can believe in.....you betcha you........for conservatives!

    Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 09:59am

53. Yesterday, a beautiful fall Saturday....

    I watched a lot of college football from 11 am to 10 pm and spent almost $50 in my favorite sports bar...with a late pm break home for shower & dinner.....

    Magic relaxed at Camp David.

    Former President George W. Bush, along with former First Lady Laura Bush, visited Ft. Hood and insisted that the event be private and NO photographers permitted.

    Of the above, who was tagged by UK's Telegraph as "bloodless"?

    Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 10:14am

54. >>>"At my age," said Stark, "I've learned to take what you can, when you can get it."<<<

    Now THAT sounds like a "pragmatic progressive"!

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/08/2009 @ 10:15am

55. Happy-You guys on the right drink as much kool aid as the other side and none of you have figured out that it is the same flavor of kool aid.Your taste buds have been destroyed by excessive kool aid consumption.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 10:17am

56. Fascinating, indeed.

    The public option isn't about free coverage for anyone; it's about competition for monopoly insurers like mine, stopping cost-shifting by providers, and stopping the dumping of sick people onto Medicaid.

    The long-term benefits? More private employers able to offer insurance, more businesses started by workers able to afford insurance, higher productivity . . . and this is detrimental to the private sector how?

    Posted by samcrossett at 11/08/2009 @ 10:18am

57. Happy's the kool aid kid!

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:19am

58. Happy-The last thing that Fort Hood needs is for politicians to visit.They disrupt everything.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 10:19am

59. Happy's the kool aid kid! Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:19am |

    More like trickle-down "lemonade".

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:20am

60. Yea, commander cod piece and pickles are making up for all the time they didn't spend at fort hood, during the eight years bush was in office.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:23am

61. Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 08:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Excellent post though lets not forget that it was the alliance of the Crown and British corporations like the East India Co. that exploited the colonies. And it's important to remember that many citizens on the right of the political spectrum would actually have supported the Crown and corporations.

    Corporations being tyrannical organizations but more accurately totalitarian institutions. In fact, they are unaccountable private tyrannies in which power comes from above, from the owners and the managers, orders are transferred down below. You take your orders from above and you transmit them below. At the bottom people have the right to rent themselves to this tyrannical system. It is essentially unaccountable to the public except by a weak regulatory apparatus. And interestingly if you look at their intellectual roots(of corporations), it happens that they come out of the same neo-Hegelian conceptions of the rights of organic entities that led to bolshevism and fascism. Which is why we have had three forms of twentieth century totalitarianism: bolshevism, fascism and corporation. Two of them, fortunately, were dissolved, disappeared mostly. The third remains. It shouldn't. And something as fundamentally anti-democratic as a corporation probably won't survive even in a formal though not fully functioning democracy like the US that is unless corporates suffocate democracy(though don't worry I'm sure the right is working hard to accomplish just that...but surely I jest).

    Posted by hdthoreau at 11/08/2009 @ 10:31am

62. Conservative Christians do not have the right to impose their religious views on me or any other woman. The restriction on abortion rights is a travesty.

    Posted by lindaebrewer at 11/08/2009 @ 04:02am

    Do you really expect me to help you kill your baby? See a psychiatrist please.

    And I'm not a conservative Christian by a long shot.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:34am

63. I thought the Tea Partys and Town Halls ...

    KILLED health care reform days if not weeks ago?!??!?!?!?

    Weird, given "most Americans supported the Parties and Halls"?!???!?!

    Odd.

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2009 @ 10:34am

64. Uh gunny, I couldn't tell by your post that your not a conservative, "expect me to help you kill your baby", sounds pretty conservative to me.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:36am

65. Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 06:40am

    Estimated one trillion over a decade in savings from uneeded testing would be realized. Nobody said anything about not protecting patients fron bad medicine.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:37am

66. And last time I looked gunny, abortion was legal.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:38am

67. Posted by Mask at 11/08/2009 @ 10:34am

    You have a piece of legislation passed by the fringe of a party so they can pass out more freebies at YOUR expense and you see nothing wrong with that?

    The Senate is where the adults reside. A think some form of HC reform should be passed. Look for republicans to eliminate the public option and to add in tort reform for starters. This bill is going nowhere fast.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:46am

68. Black democrats and those who are white but live in predominately black districts can go back home and crow about how their constituents can now punish rich whitey for not giving them enough freebies even though they've enjoyed government largess for several decades now. It's the rest of the country that will be up in arms.

    The HC system we alredy have is the best in the world. True, it can use some improvement in several areas which I've pointed out numerous times here. But those are the only areas that need improvement.

    If democrats did it right, they could have had a much bigger win and a bipartisan one to boot. The fact that they only won by five votes, one of which was a troubled republican, prooves that their bill is not to be taken seriously. Voters will see through this flawed bill and demand that the Senate straighten it out. Then a reworked HC reform bill should pass with a bipartisan compromise. The public option will be eliminated and tort reform will be added in some form that democrats can stomach.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:56am

69. Gotta keep them trial lawyers happy

    Posted by dscott at 11/08/2009 @ 10:56am

70. If this act of tyranny is signed into law then the republic will have ended and we can toss the constitution into the trash.

    This is one of the worst moments in American history and I weep for my country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 10:58am

71. You know gunny, if you know exactly what to do with HC, and you think you know how the country feels maybe you should run for office, NOT.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:59am

72. "this outrage that calls itself healthcare reform is an assault on the freedom of Americans. Threatening them with huge fines and prison if they refuse to pay for health insurance."

    please link to the section of the final bill which states "huge fines" and "prison"?

    (hint: it doesn't exist)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:15am

73. "If this act of tyranny is signed into law then the republic will have ended and we can toss the constitution into the trash.

    This is one of the worst moments in American history and I weep for my country"

    (quote of the day)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:16am

74. "are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years."

    this is NOT in the bill. i repeat: this is NOT in the bill.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:17am

75. This bill is going nowhere fast.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:46am

    That's funny poopslinger! Of course for wingers progress is always "going nowhere".

    HR 676 would have been much simpler. As it is now I might be long dead before single payer passes.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 11:19am

76. Yeah, the abortion concession sure stinks, but hey, we got a public option passed. Not a particularly storng one, but a public option nonetheless.

    For now, we've beaten Beck. We beat the idiot, superminority Teabaggers that never represented the majority of public opinion of America. We beat all the spineless Dems and crowing Repubs that said a public option couldn't be passed.

    That's something to feel good about, isn't it?

    Let's hope the Senate follows suit and keeps this momentum going. After all, bills like this can always be improved upon later. Funding for abortion coverage and other such desired aspects can be added down the line once the bill is secured.

    And as somebody else mentioned previously, the fact that we have so many posters on this thread whining about how this bill "is unconstitutional" (it's not, and they never explain how it is) or "funds healthcare for illegal immigrants" (when it explicitly outlaws such funding, despite the fact that it's a non-existent problem with similar programs like Medicare) only shows how good this bill really is!

    Posted by badreligionlover at 11/08/2009 @ 11:19am

77. really amused how neoconservatives like maasch and larry are completely satisfied with two totally unnecessary trillion dollars occupations of dangeous and unstable foreign countries, but somehow threatened (to the point of sheer insanity) by feeble attempts to lower healthcare costs for low income americans.

    orwell saw this coming.....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:19am

78. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:37am |

    "Estimated one trillion over a decade in savings from unneeded testing would be realized."

    How about the patients exercising their 'freedom' to not request or submit to tests they don't need?

    How many diseases would be caught later rather than sooner? Can you think of any costs associated with that?

    "Nobody said anything about not protecting patients from bad medicine."

    Of course not, that would be bad PR, but that's the end result of the course you're advocating (pun intended).

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:20am

79. larry, for instance, supports warrantless wiretapping, a massive and clear violation of freedom.....

    but lowering healthcare costs? THAT's tyranny?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:21am

80. the lack of reproductive rights in this bill are terrifying.....and you wanna talk about tyranny?

    it's called the tyranny of men....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:23am

81. When it comes to the subject of abortion the right is all talk no action.It's when the subject is money or guns that the right gets emotional and will take action as is rather obvious from reality..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 11:23am

82. hey larry,

    thoughts on the republican alternative bill?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:24am

83. Do you really expect me to help you kill your baby? See a psychiatrist please.

    And I'm not a conservative Christian by a long shot.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 10:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Hey, you don't seem to mind your tax dollars funding wars that kill hundreds of FULL-GROWN humans every month, so what's the big deal about funding the abortion of a little unborn EGG or two?

    Egg >>> Full-grown human...

    The messed up little hierarchy of a "pro-life" voter.

    Posted by badreligionlover at 11/08/2009 @ 11:25am

84. larry is angered over federally-funded abortion.....until his daughter or granddaughter needs one....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:25am

85. this is NOT in the bill. i repeat: this is NOT in the bill.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:17am

    Been reading it and haven't seen anything like that yet. I may be done reading it in a couple of years. Maybe it's more prudent to wait until the final version.

    I think that expanding Medicare so that everyone could buy into it would have been a short read..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 11:30am

86. Nah, gunny and anti will never know if their daughters or grand-daughters get abortions because those daughters and grand-daughters will never tell them.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:32am

87. "Do you really expect me to help you kill your baby? See a psychiatrist please"

    ah, but as soon as your wife or daughter needs an abortion?

    this bill even prevents low income women, who get CANCER during pregnancy, from having an abortion.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:32am

88. That's something to feel good about, isn't it?

    Posted by badreligionlover at 11/08/2009 @ 11:19am

    The fact that you need to ask that question shows how silly that show was yesterday.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:32am

89. larry is angered over federally-funded abortion.....until his daughter or granddaughter needs one....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:25am

    Knowing Larry he probably has a "home cure" for such inconveniences.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 11:33am

90. "Been reading it and haven't seen anything like that"

    just do keyword searches. type "prison" or "fine" and see what comes up.

    what larry is posting is a fat lie, spread by far right bloggers....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:33am

91. Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:19am

    You keep forgetting about the OIL!

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:33am

92. i want a list of all republican congressional figures whose wives, sisters or daughters or granddaughters have had abortions.

    that would say everything we need to know about republican hypocrisy.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:35am

93. Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:33am

    I noticed it does have a document search feature. Thanks, I'll try that.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 11:36am

94. hey larry,

    thoughts on the republican alternative bill?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:24am

    I don't want republicans to offer an alternative. I don't want Congress interfering at all with healthcare services. It's none of their business.

    It is a state and individual issue, not the Federal govts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:36am

95. Darla, read my last post, aint gonna happen, repubs are nothing if not hypocrites.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:36am

96. And you'll notice its the guys on the right on this board who are against abortion.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:37am

97. Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:20am

    C'mon. You can't snow the snoman, snow. Most patients hold their doctors in pretty high regard. No doctor ever says to a patient, "I'm sending you to get this test because if I don't, you might sue me for malpractice." It's done very quietly and I maintain, unessessarily to the tune of a trillion wasted dollars and services over the course of a decade. Sure keeps the hC professionals busy though.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:37am

98. larry is angered over federally-funded abortion.....until his daughter or granddaughter needs one....

    Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:25am

    never, never, never will I aid or assist in the murder of innocent children.

    And for the responses sure to come. We have never targeted innocent children in war.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:38am

99. Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:36am

    Noble thinking but a little naive at this point. Obama will have a HC bill passes come hell or high water. His political life depends upon it.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:39am

100. This is what bothers me about weepers like Santi. First he uses the 2000 year old book to be a hater of people with alternative life styles. Then he uses his study of a 230 year old pamphlet to be the arbiter of the issues of the day. In both cases he looks down a tunnel to make his conclusions. I need an e mail address to send the definition of flexibility to him. For that is what has helped make our country great. Flexibility in thought,technology,and action has made America great.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 11:39am

101. antisocialist-One does not have to target children in order to be guilty of killing them.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 11:40am

102. yes anti, but small children getting killed are the unintended consequence of was of war.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:41am

103. "unintended consequence of war"

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:42am

104. This is what bothers me about weepers like Santi. First he uses the 2000 year old book to be a hater of people with alternative life styles. Then he uses his study of a 230 year old pamphlet to be the arbiter of the issues of the day. In both cases he looks down a tunnel to make his conclusions. I need an e mail address to send the definition of flexibility to him. For that is what has helped make our country great. Flexibility in thought,technology,and action has made America great.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 11:39am

     lvliberty@msn.com

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:43am

105. "It is a state and individual issue, not the Federal govts"

     ah, then certainly you support the kucinich amendment which would allows states to adopt a single payer system, then, right?

     "We have never targeted innocent children in war"

     (quote of the day)

     "never, never, never will I aid or assist in the murder of innocent children"

     one cannot abort children.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:43am

106. But Anti, you will never know if the women in your life get an abortion.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:45am

107. antisocialist-One does not have to target children in order to be guilty of killing them.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 11:40am

     this country murders nearly a million children every year through abortion.

     You pro-baby murderers have unclean hands.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:45am

108. "this country murders nearly a million children every year through abortion"

     anti, you cannot abort "children".....

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:46am

109. But Anti, you will never know if the women in your life get an abortion.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:45am

     Yes, I have and I begged both women I knew to let me adopt the child instead. I offered to pay all of their medical bills also. Instead they murdered those babies and I grieved over their deaths for months.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:46am

110. fake antisocialist-Grow up and get a life.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 11:47am

111. "this country murders nearly a million children every year through abortion"

     anti, you cannot abort "children".....

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:46am

     yes they are. It's only because you dehumanize the child in the womb so you don't have to face the guilt of murder.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:48am

112. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:37am |

     I just talked a Kaiser pediatric hematologist out of doing an unnecessary retest of my 4-month old's protein S/C levels this week because drawing venous blood from an infant borders on cruelty.

     What percentage of tests do you think are unnecessary versus merely advisable from the vantage point of prevention (versus the proverbial pound of cure)?

     I'll freely admit that docs tend to err on the side of doing tests...they wouldn't be attracted to the career if they didn't see the value in their tools, but I'm not convinced that the problem is as rampant as you believe or will be solved by tort reform without consequences.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:52am

113. "Instead they murdered those babies and I grieved over their deaths for months"

     typical selfish asshole male. what a jerk. f*ck you larry.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:54am

114. Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:38am |

     "And for the responses sure to come. We have never targeted innocent children in war."

     Clusterbombs don't exactly require 'targetting' do they?

     They're in the same class as nukes, horseshoes, and hand-grenades.

     Or is your contention that those children weren't innocent because they failed to frag their ideologically-challenged parents?

     How's your stance on contraception, Anti?

     Willing to help people avoid the unwanted pregnancies from the get-go? Or are you hypocritical and/or in favor of abstinence-only pablum?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:59am

115. darla-That isn't Larry.That's the child who is an id troll.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 12:07pm

116. I just talked a Kaiser pediatric hematologist out of doing an unnecessary retest of my 4-month old's protein S/C levels this week because drawing venous blood from an infant borders on cruelty.

     this is your choice, but don't go on about drawing blood from an infant, it's done all the time.

     our diagnostic tests are a great boon to medicine. better test now than intervene later.

     to those of our senior contributor, I again urge you to get the colonoscopy now, lest you be deadly sorry later.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/08/2009 @ 12:09pm

117. Let's see, the Blue Dog democrats that voted against the bill are now targeted by MoveOn.org (unless their threat was empty) and the Blue Dogs that voted for the bill have tee'd themselves up for removal one year from now as the country clearly becomes more concerned about the size and scope of government. Throw in double-digit unemployment, inflation, rising interest rates and higher taxes, the Democrats are going to have some tough sledding in 2010.

     Posted by Incoming at 11/08/2009 @ 12:22pm

118. never, never, never will I aid or assist in the murder of innocent children. Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:38am

     Up until 8 weeks it is an embryo, after eight weeks it is a fetus. When it is born it is a baby. If you kill a baby then you are considered a murderer. And I don't think any sane person would want to assist in the murder of innocent children.

     And anytime people engage in War (an insane action) there will be innocent children killed.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 12:23pm

119. And Larry, if you were so concerned about the lives of children you would be Anti-War instead of Antisocialist.

     So as a supporter of WAR, that makes you a hypocrite now doesn't it?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 12:39pm

120. To all the other posters who are tired of having religion brought into every blog...I truly apologize, but in this case I feel I have little choice..

     <i>We have never targeted innocent children in war.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:38am</i>

     Even if we haven't...apparently God has..

     <<1 Samuel 15:2-3:

     This is what the LORD of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'" >>

     There are other verses concerning other groups, with the same categorical order given. So I ask you, has God ordered the killing of children, or hasn't he? If the people had done it of their own initiative, would it have been wrong then? If so, does goodness not become relative? If not, your position seems internally inconsistent unless you actually intend to argue that a civilization may deliberately and with no remorse preserve itself on the altar of innocents.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 12:42pm

121. How about the patients exercising their 'freedom' to not request or submit to tests they don't need?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:20am

     We have too many doctors!

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 12:51pm

122. Yes, I have and I begged both women I knew to let me adopt the child instead. I offered to pay all of their medical bills also. Instead they murdered those babies and I grieved over their deaths for months. Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:46am |

     darla-That isn't Larry.That's the child who is an id troll. Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 12:07pm |

     No, that's Larry...note the lack of a '0' (not an 'o') in the original post.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 12:55pm

123. There is no health care reform with the Bishop's anti-choice amendment. Progressives shouldn't stand for this sellout. Restore funds for reproductive freedom or don't pass this bill!

     Posted by maddog69 at 11/08/2009 @ 12:58pm

124. More private employers able to offer insurance, more businesses started by workers able to afford insurance, higher productivity . . . and this is detrimental to the private sector how?

     Posted by samcrossett at 11/08/2009 @ 10:18am

     IF you change out the word "able" to "forced".....I would know you actually have some factual knowledge of what's in them 2,000 pages!

     Wal-mart was "able" to afford insurance for its workers.....even if the coverage was rather limited. I am "able" to afford a lot things but it is up to me to decide, how much able-ing I want to pay for! Note the word "I"....as in personal freedom "I".

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 1:01pm

125. "At my age," said Stark, "I've learned to take what you can, when you can get it." -- Rep Pete Stark

     Maybe that should be the new Democrat motto: "Take whatever you can, whenever you can."

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/08/2009 @ 1:04pm

126. "Second, the health care bill is deeply flawed. The infividual insurance mandate is clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Would the entire rotten structure collapse with a Supreme Court ruling? "

     What are you talking about? Have you READ the constitution? It clearly gives the legislature the right to impose new taxes, as well as to fund initiatives that the body determines to be for the good of the interests of the nation.

     Also, what is all this talk about jail time for not maintaining health coverage. The bill does not create jail time for not maintaining coverage, what it does it to refer to penalties already in place for refusing to pay taxes! What the bill does is provide for taxes UP TO 2% of income for opting out of having any kind of health coverage. Since most people would rather have coverage, this will not effect pretty much anyone, except a few fringe people who drop existing coverage and refuse to get any other out of spite.

     Also, the cost of this is being tremendously over estimated. Most people who have enough income for this to even impact them will have health coverage through their employer already. Those that do not, for whatever reason, will be able to afford this simply based on the fact that it is considerably cheaper than private health insurance, which they are either currently suffering without, or which they are currently paying much more to recieve. I just don't understand yo people. Really. Get a grip and read your facts. And read them from the source, not from "Family Research Council", which by the way, is a wholly owned subzidiary of a group of corporations with close ties in republican congress.

     Posted by bhibsen at 11/08/2009 @ 1:33pm

127. Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 1:01pm |

     How many small businesses, as a percentage, do you think are over the $500k cap, Hap?

     <About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll. Most are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses, and may or may not be the owner's principal source of income.>

     Doh...there goes 75% of your complaint.

     http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

     Do the math...97.5% of 'small businesses' are under the limit.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 1:34pm

128. Maybe that should be the new Democrat motto: "Take whatever you can, whenever you can." Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/08/2009 @ 1:04pm |

     It's already 'taken'.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 1:35pm

129. antisocialist! It is amazing that you call yourself by that name, afterall, you ARE a communist!!! Most certainly a traitor to America!!! You insane, illogical ramble is worthless. Actually, what passed yesterday is a weakened version of what should have passed. Every free Democratic country has solid health insurance plans for their people except America. That is because the GREED in this country is bigger than anywhere on Earth. Your ideology is that of a traitor, a coward and a liar!!! ALL rebublicans should and must be voted OUT of office for voting against Health Care Reform. They should fear the voters. Only frightened, bigots support the twisted, greedy ideas of the rebublican party.

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/08/2009 @ 1:41pm

130. Between the penalties for not having insurance and the anti-reproductive rights ammendment, this legislation succeeds in being extremely conservative.

     Posted by kiwi_kiwi_kiwi at 11/08/2009 @ 1:52pm

131. <About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll. Most are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses, and may or may not be the owner's principal source of income.>

     Doh...there goes 75% of your complaint.

     http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

     Do the math...97.5% of 'small businesses' are under the limit.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 1:34pm

     I own two businesses that fall under "self-employed" catagory and I hardly consider myself a future job-generator!

     I did own another business 18 years ago that in today's dollars, probably would have $500k in payroll. If I'm in those same shoes today, I wouldn't do any new hires...in fact, I'd make sure I stay under $500k and also make sure I don't draw a salary like I did.

     The name of the game, as it always should be, is how does legislation (that take away decision-making by businesses & impose more regulations) affect job growth!

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 2:04pm

132. I own two businesses that fall under "self-employed" catagory and I hardly consider myself a future job-generator! -----Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 2:04pm

     So there would be no point in giving YOU a tax cut, would there????

     Posted by Mask at 11/08/2009 @ 2:09pm

133. So there would be no point in giving YOU a tax cut, would there????

     Posted by Mask at 11/08/2009 @ 2:09pm

     In my special case, I know how to give myself tax cuts at will! Just an example, my trip to Vegas & Utah can be entirely expensed, partially, or none; just depends if I need a "tax cut"....or my visiting sports bars where "MASK" shows as my guest on my log......hey, just like Geithner, Rangel and assorted other model Obamites!

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 2:17pm

134. Between the penalties for not having insurance and the anti-reproductive rights ammendment, this legislation succeeds in being extremely conservative.

     Posted by kiwi_kiwi_kiwi at 11/08/2009 @ 1:52pm

     I have been reading the bill and doing document searches for these "penalties", still have not found them in the bill. Maybe you could help me out and tell me where they are? As I'm sure you must have read them. Right?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 2:28pm

135. snowball-My glasses aren't strong enough to notice the difference in the "o".I just thought the post sounded like the fake one that I got.I knew mine was fake because he said I was pro abortion,but anti knows that I'm not.If it was the real anti who responded to me then he must be intoxicated.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 3:11pm

136. Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 3:11pm |

     He's high on pro-life.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 3:35pm

137. Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 2:04pm |

     Probably wise not to create jobs which can't be justified for lack of customers (who are too busy looking for a new place to live), but that doesn't change the fact that the wall-to-wall anti-HR3962 ad which features a shop steward giving folks the 'bad news' is little more than overblown rhetoric unless the handful of blue-collar workers shaking their heads in the dramatic focus-pull shot are making $80k/yr as lathe operators.

     Companies that need the best talent have benefits to attract same.

     Companies that only need warm bodies don't (yet).

     What company would hire more people than it absolutely needs to meet the available demand, only because they didn't have to provide health insurance?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 3:57pm

138. snowball-If it was him that responded to me then he is high alright,but not on pro life.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 4:06pm

139. antisocialist-If that was you that responded to me then man up and let me know what drugs you're on..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 4:26pm

140. I have been reading the bill and doing document searches for these "penalties", still have not found them in the bill. Maybe you could help me out and tell me where they are? As I'm sure you must have read them. Right?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 2:28pm

     That's because it's not in the healthcare bill, but in the IRS codes.

     The bill requires you to provide eithe proof of insurance on your tax return or pay the penalty.

     The reason the JCT noted this is that if someone refuses to buy health insurance and to pay the 2.5% of income penalty, then the noted sections of the IRS code including 7201 and 7203 will be invoked.

     http://tinyurl.com/3x6kfh

     I watched the debate yesterday and Democrats did not deny this could be invoked, in fact they are counting on it to make people buy health insurance.

     That any liberal could say they believe in freedom and support that kind of totalitarian move denies all logic.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 4:43pm

141. "Instead they murdered those babies and I grieved over their deaths for months"

     typical selfish asshole male. what a jerk. f*ck you larry.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 11:54am

     You think it's selfish to grieve over the death of a child? if you believe that, you are worse than a jerk.

     as to your last, I don't think you're woman enough.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 4:50pm

142. antisocialist-If that was you that responded to me then man up and let me know what drugs you're on..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 4:26pm

     with the imposter, I can never be sure until I go back and look. It was me and I quit doing drugs 30 years ago.

     While I had forgotten that you "say" you are not for abortion, your comments here say otherwise.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 4:52pm

143. Lefties, you still have reproductive rights...you just have to pay for them yourself.

     Posted by pyeatte at 11/08/2009 @ 4:56pm

144. Or get ACORN to pay for them...

     Posted by pyeatte at 11/08/2009 @ 4:58pm

145. <i>Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 2:28pm </i>

     I haven't read the bill, but here's my two cents: if there aren't penalties in the bill, how does a "requirement" mean anything?

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 5:16pm

146. antisocialist-Point out my comments that show otherwise.As you know,I got out of the movement because you guys are all talk no action so I quit taking your claims of being anti abortion seriously years ago.Unlike you guys,I'm honest about the issue and admit that I decided to just let women decide the issue and do not think about it much.You guys just use the issue to call people names and to pretend to be superior.You know that calling people baby killers is counter productive,but you do it anyway because you do not care about the issue.If you cared you would engage in mature dialog about it,but you don't..Your views on abstinence only education leads to more abortions,but you push that anyway..I just gave you specific reasons why I do not take yours or the rights claims of being anti abortion seriously.Please,for once back up what you say about me with specifics rather than your usual general statement.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 11/08/2009 @ 5:27pm

147. as to your last, I don't think you're woman enough. Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 4:50pm |

     I'm sure Darla's got the goods...but YOU'RE not woman enough for HER.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 5:33pm

148. With this 4 year waiting period for health care reform to start I wonder how many of the conservatives will be using charitable foundations to help them pay hospital costs.Since your number one concern is for failure, how many of your fellow conservatives are you going to step on to make sure it happens. This is a corporate bill paid for by your pals but opposed by groups like the Chamber of Commerce who have long since quit caring about local businesses.I just watched the commercial chasing after Colin Peterson,the House Ag Committee chairman.That must be targeted advertising in this health care mess. The Chamber used fake numbers like the DuNcE does on this site. When is this going to end?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 5:41pm

149. To deny financing of a procedure after a woman has paid for private insurance with her own private funds is the ultimate offense to her status as a full participant in the marketplace. It is the worst kind of slap at market orthodoxy. It is the ultimate penalty against her private decision. It shows contempt for her judgment, her value as a citizen and as a human person. In an economy like this one, it creates a massive hurdle to her care.

     And again, in true "Shock Doctrine" fashion, it was done under cover of darkness, as an 11th hour maneuver to protect a bill which progressives are told is life or death. Women won't get the procedure covered (by their money paid to their insurers) again.

     This it should concern everyone because pregnancy affects both genders, male and female. Especially since the basis of the clause was religious belief, particularly as stated by the Council of Catholic Bishops. It may pass the abstract Establishment clause tests put forth by the Supreme Court. But the spirit of the law is clear: in an age of FISA, the Patriot Act and military tribunals, an individual right was taken away, on the basis of the Christian religion. We hurtle closer to Facism by the day. And neither of the major parties will save us.

     Posted by nat_reader at 11/08/2009 @ 5:49pm

150. Yes I thought there was a separation between church and state in this country. It seems it becomes a narrower separation every day. What's the Constitution say?

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 6:40pm

151. If men bore children there would be an abortion clinic in every town in america. They'd have big screen t.v.'s just in case the abortion took place during an important sporting event. Woman would be required to be nuetered if they got there man pregnant by accident(neglect).

     Posted by stpwarsnow at 11/08/2009 @ 6:59pm

152. Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 4:43pm

     All I can say is that there is no final bill yet. I know nothing of any changes in the IRS to enforce this crappy bill.

     If we had the ability to buy into Medicare with a simple change in the law that would enable people of all ages to buy into Medicare, these alledged enforcement procedures would not be necessary. If you were working or had an income the taxes would be deducted from that income just like social security is. The amount you paid would be income based on a sliding scale and employers would be required to contribute also. The amount employers would contibute would be much less than they currently spend.

     Everyone would be covered and the price we pay for healthcare in this country would fall into line with other industrialized countries which would allow us to compete and provide more jobs.

     This is not rocket science and does not need to be complicated. The only reason it is being complicated is to confuse the American people and provide a method for the for profit health insurance companies to continue fleecing the American people.

     If when the final bill passes and it contains unfair penalties on the poor, I will be standing side by side with you in protest.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 7:10pm

153. Right behind you chaoszen, hopefully we will eventually get there, baby steps?

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 7:15pm

154. "You think it's selfish to grieve over the death of a child? if you believe that, you are worse than a jerk."

     no, it's selfish to use your own, personal grieving to deny millions of woman their reproductive rights.

     that men can vote on women's reproductive rights is real tyranny.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 7:25pm

155. women make up only 17% of congress. so, when a vote on abortion comes to the floor.....men should not be able to vote.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 7:26pm

156. in order to pay for healthcare reforms, tax increases should be mandatory. nothing shocking there.

     and if one refuses to pay a tax, then why shouldn't there be a penalty?

     here is the tax code:

     "Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

     what's so "totalitarian" about this, larry?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 7:28pm

157. Right behind you chaoszen, hopefully we will eventually get there, baby steps?

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 7:15pm

     The only thing I'm worried about is that these "baby steps" lead right over a cliff to the rocks below.

     I'm glad to see that Dennis Kucinich voted against this shitty attempt by Democrats to do nothing but pat each other on the back and proclaim victory. It sickens me. We need real reform, not some cobbled up mess that allows lawmakers to masturbate their ego's and indulge in self agrandizement.

     This is no victory for the American people who gave our lawmakers a mandate. It is only a hollow attempt at addressing a national crisis.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 7:30pm

158. but on this issue of the tax code: instead of requiring people to purchase insurance, why don't we just raise taxes on everyone (a sliding scale pattern) to pay for universal, single payer care? we KNOW it will lower costs, and cover everyone. so why wait?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 7:34pm

159. This kind of crap sickens me so much that I feel compelled to leave a country that I love. It's not easy to pack up your life and flee. I feel like a refugee.

     The sooner I can get out of this crazy country, the better.

     At some point a person must make the choice. I have learned when to hold-em and when to fold-em.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/08/2009 @ 7:37pm

160. It is too easy to simply raise the taxes for health care. Just think about this,the last 2 CEO's of United Health were awarded$2.4 billion in stock options over the last 10 years.Does that answer why we don't simply start up a government health care plan. Santi and his Constitutional pals use that as an excuse to support the insurance companies. He knows from his reading of the Revolutionary War time period that the war profiteers were America's first crooks .Why he is a war supporter with his supposed spiritual life is beyond me.Yet he acts like the crooks are people who want equality for all. Shame on him and his fellow ideologues.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 7:54pm

161. Hey whatozz, thats "for shame" on those who put war before the people.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/08/2009 @ 7:58pm

162. no, it's selfish to use your own, personal grieving to deny millions of woman their reproductive rights.

     that men can vote on women's reproductive rights is real tyranny.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 7:25pm

     You mean non-reproductive rights?

     Which "gain" most women achieve as they age anyway.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 11/08/2009 @ 8:13pm

163. <i>Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 7:26pm </i>

     This argument is dumb. Abortion is purely a women's issue only if you believe that men are incapable of having input on the moral debate. There is no reason in the world to buy this premise, and there's no reason to believe that men shouldn't be able to vote on the question, especially since women constitute a majority of the population.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 8:14pm

164. Well that's true but I just am puzzled by the conflict between the spiritual and the war monger. I don't know how to reconcile it in my mind.I am reminded of "The Troubles"in Northern Ireland.It seems like a warm-up video for the sectarian warfare in Iraq. What bothers me is we used an obviously vicious tyrant as our reason to nation build an ancient society that we have proved to not understand.Also we have used the religious aspect to drive yet another wedge in how Americans perceive the world and in turn are perceived.

     Posted by whatozz at 11/08/2009 @ 8:14pm

165. "There is no reason in the world to buy this premise, and there's no reason to believe that men shouldn't be able to vote on the question, especially since women constitute a majority of the population"

     sure there is, here goes the reasoning by way of digby:

     "There are only 76 women in the House out of 435 --- 17%. 59 of them are Democrats and 17 are Republicans. Three of the Democrats are non-voting members (DC, Virgin Islands and Guam.)

     Out of the 56 women in the Democratic caucus, only two voted for Stupak. All 17 Republican women voted for it.

     What this adds up to is that 97% of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment were male. 90% of the Republicans were male.

     I would have to guess that if more than 17% of the congress were women, there would be a little bit less likelihood that women's rights would be so often used as a handy tool to placate neanderthals. That's just a guess. Habits are hard to break"

     "Abortion is purely a women's issue only if you believe that men are incapable of having input on the moral debate"

     i believe that men are incapable of having ANY input on the debate, whether moral or otherwise. unless, of course, they can get pregnant and bear children. until men can do that, then they can't POSSIBLY understand a woman's position.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 8:50pm

166. Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 8:50pm |

     So, by your logic, women are also 100% responsible for insuring that they don't BECOME pregnant, right?

     (don't look at me, it's YOUR problem, honey)

     Should we no longer hold deadbeat dads accountable for contributing to the care of their children?

     (hey, it wasn't THEIR choice to keep the kid)

     And what makes you so confident that, if more women were in congress, a majority of them would still be Dems, much less vote along pro-choice lines?

     (slow pan past picture of bat-sh-t-crazy Bachmann)

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 9:06pm

167. <i>Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 8:50pm </i>

     All right. So if any legislation on gun control comes up, should any women who have never owned a gun abstain from voting on it? I mean, after all, they have no personal experience with owning a gun. Or, in a slightly more bizarre example, if legislation concerning testicular cancer somehow comes up, do all women legislators have to abstain from voting on it? After all, they're definitionally incapable of having it.

     This is dumb, and here's why. You don't have to have personal experience of the thing regulated in order to participate in an intelligent discussion of the thing in question. You don't have to be capable of pregnancy, for instance, to argue that the being inside of the woman is a person. Men can make that argument, and men can engage it.

     That all said...I would actually agree with antisocialist that this specific bill is unconstitutional. The Constitution has allowed Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but I'm not aware of ANY case that permits Congress to require someone to buy a product they have no desire for. People are generally required to buy auto insurance if they drive a car, but (1) that only applies IF they choose to drive a car, and (2) is done exclusively (I think) by states, so Congressional power isn't even brought into question.

     Sidenote: Obama's platform exclusively repudiated a mandate. Does anyone remember this little detail?

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 9:42pm

168. here is the tax code:

     "Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

     what's so "totalitarian" about this, larry?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 7:28pm

     Because it's based upon my choice not to purchase health insurance.

     Do you think that Americans should be sent to prison if they don't want to purchase health insurance?

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 9:55pm

169. "So if any legislation on gun control comes up, should any women who have never owned a gun abstain from voting on it?"

     incredibly poor example, thrawn.

     "if legislation concerning testicular cancer somehow comes up, do all women legislators have to abstain from voting on it?"

     cancer is cancer, and women get cancer. ergo, another horrible example.

     pregnancy is wholly unique, and wholly unique to the female species, and whether men can intelligently engage the issue doesn't mean that they should vote on whether women have a right to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with respect to reproduction (aka whether or not to: a) go through 9 months of hell, b) go through labor, and c) raise the child).

     "So, by your logic, women are also 100% responsible for insuring that they don't BECOME pregnant, right?"

     stay on topic, please.

     "That all said...I would actually agree with antisocialist that this specific bill is unconstitutional"

     antisocialist would have been opposed to this bill even without the requirement that people purchase health insurance.

     i agree that it's wrong to require people to buy insurance. but can't we scrap that and simply tax the entire population to pay for this?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 9:55pm

170. "You don't have to have personal experience of the thing regulated in order to participate in an intelligent discussion of the thing in question"

     i'm sorry, but with pregnancy, you do. a man can NEVER understand what it's like living with the ability to get pregnant, be impregnated, or go through labor.

     if men had the ability to get pregnant, then men would have far less power, due to this (dis)ability.

     "Do you think that Americans should be sent to prison if they don't want to purchase health insurance?"

     but it says, "willfully evades" any attempt to "pay this imposition of tax".....

     is this really requiring someone to go out and buy an insurance plan, or does it merely tax him? and if he intentially doesn't pay the tax, then he faces problems....

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 10:00pm

171. it would only be unconstitutional if the government REQUIRES every uninsured person to go out and buy an insurance plan (either public or private)......that's clearly fucked up.

     and that is why we NEED to tax EVERYONE (on a sliding scale, as per income)......and simply have medicare for all.

     antisocialist would also be opposed to this, so when thrawn says he "agrees with antisocialist" he only agrees insofar as governments don't have the right to require someone to buy an insurance plan.

     does thrawn disagree with my idea of taxing everyone?

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 10:03pm

172. Get ready for higher premiums for those who have insurance, rationed care, cuts in Medicare that will harm the elderly, and all this for people who do not think they should pay for health care and that the government owes it to them, and for twelve million illegal immigrants who are about to receive free medical care thanks to the middle class.

     No tort reform, so this means that physicians will still be leaving the practice of medicine (gynegologists for example) because of the absurd malpractice insurance, no real reining in of the insurance companies, and nothing whatsoever is done to the pharmacuetical companies.

     The Republicans want to do nothing and let a troubled system go down in flames and the Democrats want to control 20% of the economy, ration care, and increase the burden on the middle class so the poor and illegal immigrants can benefit. Both political parties in this country are an absolute disgrace.

     If you believe government can do a better job than the private industry I hope you never have to have the sad experience of going to a V.A. hospital and if you are still waiting in line in April for the swine flu vacine to be available thank your government.

     Posted by mjkoch at 11/08/2009 @ 10:03pm

173. "If you believe government can do a better job than the private industry"

     all the old folks i know seem to think so.....and always have.

     "Get ready for higher premiums for those who have insurance, rationed care, cuts in Medicare that will harm the elderly, and all this for people who do not think they should pay for health care and that the government owes it to them, and for twelve million illegal immigrants who are about to receive free medical care thanks to the middle class."

     your first two points are already a reality, even without the dem's plan....

     and come on, 12 million illegal immigrants are going to get free healthcare?

     yeah, right.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 10:07pm

174. aravosis today:

     "The House passed the anti-choice Stupak amendment last night. Basically, the amendment stops any government money from funding insurance plans that cover abortions. The twisted logic being that any money connected to any insurance company covering abortions is "abortion money," i.e., profits earned from "killing babies." We can't have the government touching that.

     So I sure hope that no pro-life members of Congress are accepting political donations from any insurance companies that cover abortions. Because if they are accepting such donations, they're accepting profits that came from "killing little babies."

     Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 10:09pm

175. darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 8:50pm Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 9:42pm

     This is settled case law: Vagina mind vs. Penis brain, 10,000 BC.

     Everyone's jumping on this oldest of philosophical tensions: subjective vs. objective.

     The subject-object problem, a longstanding philosophical issue, is concerned with the analysis of human experience, and of what within experience is "subjective" and what is "objective." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem

     Hint: it wouldn't be a classic debate if there weren't a lot more to it, a lot more than the oversimplified extremes, in either direction, embrace.

     Posted by winyahn at 11/08/2009 @ 10:22pm

176. Q: Do any of my lefty compadres here really think that Obama is going to stick it to the HMOs?

     Do you think this bill will affect their bottom lines?

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/08/2009 @ 10:25pm

177. Dear Anti-socialist,

     Why do you read the nation? You do know that it is a left leaning publication, right? Go read the Fox website, I'm sure there is much more there to your tastes.

     sincerely,

     A left-leaning, socialist-leaning, democrat.

     p.s. this machine kills fascists.

     Posted by joshp at 11/08/2009 @ 10:26pm

178. Companies that need the best talent have benefits to attract same.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/08/2009 @ 3:57pm

     Most young hot-shots would NOT consider health benefits all that `attractive'. But it's guaranteed that most 20 & 30-somethings would far prefer stock rights from start-ups or pre-IPO companies.

     For young companies, cash burn rate is the big gorilla and it should be at their choice whether they offer health care or not!

     Most small mom-and-pop types, your corner tailor or what-not, the "talent" they need is available everywhere.

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 10:31pm

179. <i>Posted by darladoon at 11/08/2009 @ 9:55pm </i>

     First, the tax question because it's pretty easy. Could we tax everybody and pay for the program? Yeah, I think that would probably be constitutional. Universal access to a Medicare-like program would almost certainly be constitutional.

     Now, on the abortion question.

     The first thing I want to note is that you completely ignore one of the most important parts of the argument. A man is still competent to make the following argument: A fetus is a person, the state does not have to fund the killing of persons, therefore the state does not have to provide support for abortion. A man can clearly say that, and as long as that's true, men can contribute to the debate.

     Moreover, your standard is absolutely ridiculous. First, the claim that "cancer is cancer" is false. Second, it completely misses the point. By your logic, women cannot contribute to a discussion on anything which they themselves are definitionally incapable of experiencing. That's ridiculous by itself. I'd even argue that your claim goes further; if you HAVEN'T experienced something, you can't meaningfully contribute to debate on it. That's even more ridiculous.

     <i>Posted by winyahn at 11/08/2009 @ 10:22pm </i>

     I agree with you to a point; I think that analysis of policy often combines subjective experience and objective analysis. The reason I think that's problematic for Darla's position is that as long as you are capable of contributing objective analysis, you are capable of contributing to the debate, ESPECIALLY if objective analysis can provide arguments that are independently sufficient.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 10:38pm

180. So here's the distillation of why Darla's wrong.

     It's one thing to argue that subjective experience of something gives a person an important contribution to a debate, meaning that in the case of abortion, women could bring something to the debate that men never could. That's fine, I completely agree with that; the fact that men can't experience pregnancy means that outside of statistics and things like that, we have a whole lot less direct understanding of what abortion entails for a woman than women do. I don't disagree with that.

     That's not what Darla's defending, though. She's saying that men's inability to experience pregnancy means that we can make NO contribution to the abortion debate, and that absolutist standard is just ridiculous. First, I already showed a clear reason why it's false, one she never responds to. Men are fully competent to argue that a fetus is a person, and that if this is the case, the state should not pay for abortion. That argument doesn't require subjective experience, and could (if correct) justify not funding abortion. Second, I showed that her standard doesn't make ANY sense. She may not have liked the specific examples I gave, but the point is that the possibility of subjectively experiencing something does not mean you shouldn't be able to contribute to a debate on it.

     Here's another example, actually. On the West Wing, Judge Roberto Mendoza is biologically incapable of getting drunk (he'll die if he ingests enough alcohol to get drunk). If the Supreme Court heard a case about regulating alcohol consumption, must he recuse himself?

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 10:44pm

181. "p.s. this machine kills fascists"

     Posted by joshp at 11/08/2009 @ 10:26pm

     If this machine is The Nation, I'm afraid you're mistaken. This crowd did kill some fascists in the Spanish Civil War, but eventually lost due to slavish fealty to the Comintern, which ironically saved a good many Jews from the Holocaust. Look it up.

     This machine also backed the Browder CP's support of the Hitler-Stalin pact until that broke down, during which the USSR was complicit with the Nazis extermination of East European Jews. Personally, I have wondered if the Reds in FDRs administration (and I like FDR) were instrumental in stymying the pressure from Eleanor to open up the immigration quotas to Jews who tried to escape but had no takers.

     You can find many haters here, of the nation founded by Chaim Weizmann, who tirelessly, and heartbreakingly tried in vain to find refuge from the fascists for his people. They seem to be locked into a sick competition to duplicate Eichmann-type polemics on the Israel blogs: "Jewish vermin," "human sewage," etc... Just check it out, it's a click away.

     If you want to join a machine that kills fascists, I can recommend one that I know well: the US military.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/08/2009 @ 10:47pm

182. I notice darla is clinging to the same argument srjenkin likes to use (in his case, playing the card, and repeatedly, that only someone having served in the military have the right to advocate use of force).

     Both fail to see how corrupt that line of reasoning can be....

     As a lesbian, she probably thinks only she is qualified to render judgment on civil union or marriage. As a regular pot smoker, only pot heads can decide who can smoke.....and on and on....that's the level of debate today w/much of the Left Fringe!

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 10:47pm

183. Had to register to get rid of the right wing trolls. It would be one thing if these folks were genuinely interested in debate and weren't dripping with racism, misogyny and fundamentalism. But sadly they just drip. I guess their overwhelming presence means that the Nation has done a good job of pressing buttons - well done. Thank you so much for the ignore feature!

     Posted by exileinla at 11/08/2009 @ 10:52pm

184. The "huge, 220-215" victory is already a Has Been???

     House health care overhaul faces Senate stone wall

     Health care overhaul divides Democratic senators, so House legislation faces huge hurdles

     Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer

     On 10:46 pm EST, Sunday November 8, 2009

     WASHINGTON (AP) -- The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly.....as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.

     ......The problem is that the Senate won't run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

     If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.

     "The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.

     Democrats did not line up to challenge him.....

     Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 10:54pm

185. the loss saved Jews, not the Comintern

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/08/2009 @ 10:56pm

186. Here's one for all you trial lawyers out there. If a woman has a legal abortion without the consent of the father of the baby, can he, assuming he knows the time and place of the abortion, have DNA legally extracted from the fetus, match it with his own and then sue the mother for killing his unborn child? Has this ever been tried? Just asking.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/08/2009 @ 11:09pm

187. Dear Anti-socialist,

     Why do you read the nation? You do know that it is a left leaning publication, right? Go read the Fox website, I'm sure there is much more there to your tastes.

     sincerely,

     A left-leaning, socialist-leaning, democrat.

     p.s. this machine kills fascists.

     Posted by joshp at 11/08/2009 @ 10:26pm

     I don't like Fox and I've been blogging here for 5 years and reading the Nation for over 20 years.

     I don't like fascists either

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:13pm

188. I don't like fascists either

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:13pm

     So you are a self loathing fascist? There may be hope for you yet..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 04:48am

189. This argument is dumb. Abortion is purely a women's issue only if you believe that men are incapable of having input on the moral debate. Posted by Thrawn at 11/08/2009 @ 8:14pm

     Men are not only incapable of having any input on this debate. They have no business even discussing and entirely womens issue.

     It's far past time that men stop deciding what women should do with their own bodies. How would you feel if women were in control of your yam bag?

     Oops! I think they already are.. :)

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 04:57am

190. Amazing how rebublicans support the illegal, immoral wars that bush and cheney fabricated and lied about, yet they are against abortion rights! Is it because there is no money in it for them? Or is it just insanity on their part and inability to reason as most rebublicans are afflicted with?

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 11/09/2009 @ 07:01am

191. <i>Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 04:57am</i>

     Care to actually respond to my arguments on why this position makes no sense whatsoever? I hate to be snarky and point out that saying "you're wrong" is generally easier than actually responding to arguments, but...not responding to arguments is usually not a particularly good sign...

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/09/2009 @ 07:10am

192. I don't like fascists either

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:13pm

     So you are a self loathing fascist? There may be hope for you yet..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 04:48am

     I don't think one can advocate limited government, across the board tax cuts (or a flat or fair tax), private gun ownership, school vouchers (probably the most "un-fascist" policy there is) and individualism and seriously be considered a "fascist".

     Fascists were about big government solutions, high taxes, an invasive state apparatus, using public schools for indoctrination of the young, and mobilizing the population along collectivist, centralized themes. Fascism was a left wing authoritarian political and economic operating system along nationalist/ethnic lines.

     Antisocialist, whatever his faults may be, cannot be said to support any of that rubbish. The word "fascist" gets thrown around so much it has lost any meaning or punch. It's current definition appears to be "Anybody who holds a position I personally disagree with."

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 07:27am

193. I don't like fascists either

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:13pm

     So you are a self loathing fascist? There may be hope for you yet..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 04:48am

     I don't think one can advocate limited government, across the board tax cuts (or a flat or fair tax), private gun ownership, school vouchers (probably the most "un-fascist" policy there is) and individualism and seriously be considered a "fascist".

     Fascists were about big government solutions, high taxes, an invasive state apparatus, using public schools for indoctrination of the young, and mobilizing the population along collectivist, centralized themes. Fascism was a left wing authoritarian political and economic operating system along nationalist/ethnic lines.

     Antisocialist, whatever his faults may be, cannot be said to support any of that rubbish. The word "fascist" gets thrown around so much it has lost any meaning or punch. It's current definition appears to be "Anybody who holds a position I personally disagree with."

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 07:27am

194. The word "fascist" gets thrown around so much it has lost any meaning or punch. It's current definition appears to be "Anybody who holds a position I personally disagree with."----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 07:27am

     True...quite popular with Glenn Beck and his fans.

     Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 07:40am

195. Posted by Happy at 11/08/2009 @ 10:31pm |

     "Most young hot-shots would NOT consider health benefits all that `attractive'. But it's guaranteed that most 20 & 30-somethings would far prefer stock rights from start-ups or pre-IPO companies."

     Guaranteed?! Got anything resembling proof on that one?

     I don't think my personal choice to buy Kaiser on my own when I started contracting 5 years ago is anywhere near the norm (and I'm glad I get it through the wife's bennies now...the delta goes into the kid's 529).

     Every start-up I see advertising for permanent people makes damn sure they mention their benefits package. Very few of them mention equity and most start-ups are looking for temp contractors and job shops, not pie-splits.

     Most 20 and 30-somethings are thinking about starting families, not playing Texas Hold'Em with venture capital vultures.

     "For young companies, cash burn rate is the big gorilla and it should be at their choice whether they offer health care or not!"

     I actually agree with you on this (likewise the personal mandate).

     I think we should all have the OPTION of buying into a 'goober' administrated plan like Medicare, but not required to, as I've said before.

     "Most small mom-and-pop types, your corner tailor or what-not, the 'talent' they need is available everywhere."

     True enough....stay in school kids...Oct 2009 UE by 'educational attainment'...

     Less than a high-school diploma: 15.1% High school or GED only: 11.2% Better than a bachelors's degree: 4.7%

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 08:07am

196. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 07:27am |

     Okay, you're correct on the statist nature of fascism...and the indoctrination and nationalistic propaganda techniques, but LEFT WING?!

     Mussolini...ANTI-communist, right?

     (antisocialist? hmmm...)

     Who did they blame for creating class conflict?

     (liberal democracies...i.e. the left wing)

     Sorry...they were FAR right-wing statists who simply didn't want to concede power to capitalists OR marxists.

     So...they'd be against 'bailouts'...and against 'handouts'...

     Hey...these TeaBaggers(tm) are Blackshirts with Dick Armey as the new Dino Grandi!!

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 08:28am

197. Will Anti volunteer to be the tax resister who takes his appeal to the SCOTUS?

     And what exactly is the point in fining someone 2.5% of diddley-squat?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 08:39am

198. Fascists were about big government solutions. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 07:27am

     Fascism has nothing to do with big government. When we have a big government that is functioning properly and representing the desires of the people, then that government is excercising the will of the people. When government is subjugated by corporate capiltalist influences. And that government is no longer serving the interests of the people, but instead is serving the interests of the corporations we have classic fascism.

     Do you morons not even understand what fascism is? No wonder the ruling elite capiltalists are co-opting your own best interests. You don't even recognize them for what they are. Amazing..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 08:55am

199. I found this to be an amusing, but suprising adept, analogy:

     With this 'victory,' Dems might as well be whistlin' 'Dixie'

     Saturday's vote to create a massive government-run health-insurance program is to Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats what the Battle of Gettysburg was to the South.

     It will be remembered as the high point of their unswerving efforts to demand government solutions to every big problem.

     It was their most daring stab, deepest into enemy territory.

     And the creeks will fill with the political blood of the dead who charged blindly into the angry enemy fire.

     Long from now, gauzy-eyed liberals will tear up at the memory of those who pressed forward through the mindless carnage despite knowing full well the sure fate staring back at them.

     http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/with_this_ victory_dems_might_as_tGJPDn8DVfjGPNDklfi0YN

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 08:57am

200. Well, we're making progress: At least we've got the lazy bastards working over the weekend!

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/09/2009 @ 08:58am

201. David Warren of the Ottowa Citizen also had a good column. He coined the phrase, "Going Muslim" as a complimentary phrase to, "going postal", but one that engenders a sense of cold, calculated, pre-meditation.

     But that's off topic, so never mind.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 09:02am

202. "Big Government" is the only entity that can reign in monopolistic corporations. Otherwise you get what we got. Out of control unregulated capiltalists who will steal every dime from the economy they infest.

     This is not that hard to understand. And yet many people chuckle when they hear the infamous quote from Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". What a stupid collection of words from a man who was himself deeply invested in "Big Government". The only problem was he was setting up his capiltalist buddies to rape "The shining city on the hill".

     Reagan was a Traitor, a thief and a snitch. Hell, at one time he was a commie.

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 09:04am

203. "We are already organizing to evict from Congress in 2010 Democrats who vote for this tyranny. I know there are Dems in safe scocialist districts. But we can get 50-60 out at least and that will be sufficient to make them pay for this assault on the Constitution."

     And what will they be replaced by? More hee haw extras.Please explain this assault on the constitution that is taking place. By the way what is your educational background, it seems you negate some of your points with subsequent commentary.

     Posted by jobbo at 11/09/2009 @ 09:09am

204. "Do you morons not even understand what fascism is? No wonder the ruling elite capiltalists are co-opting your own best interests. You don't even recognize them for what they are. Amazing.."

     This statement sums up most of the "opposition" to progress in this "country". It is too silly to argue with these people. There is a reason you tell your 5 year old what to do to protect them. This clearly applies to these people who whether they understand it or not are informational/educational equivalents of children. Reagan allowed stupidity to be acceptable in public discourse several decades ago. It is time to put the dopes back in the backround and replace talk show knowledge with educated debate.

     Posted by jobbo at 11/09/2009 @ 09:17am

205. Fascism was a left wing authoritarian political and economic operating system.Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/09/2009 @ 07:27am

     What a tub of bullshit. Fascism left wing? You got to be kidding. Fascists and Socialists are bitter enemies. And I mean violently bitter. Fascism is a right wing phenomenon. It has absolutely nothing to do with the left.

     Christ, why do I even bother with the likes of you? You don't even know the difference between a Socialist and a Fascist..

     Do you wear differnt color socks and wave your hands absently around and about your head? And while we are on the subject, did your mother drop you on your head as a baby? That would at least explain a few things.. Jesus..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 09:18am

206. Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 08:28am

     Remember the actual name for the "Axis" (of WW-2) before Italy joined?

     It was the "Anti-Comintern (Communist International) Pact", ratified by Germany and Japan in 1936.

     Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 09:19am

207. Sorry bout that. I really should not engage in personal attacks. But I get so frustrated by such blatant ignorance. Sorry Citizen..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 09:22am

208. JOHN, There is no such thing as "reproductive rights." There is the right to pursue you own version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which for some, out of neccesity or not, includes abortion. Reproductive rights are made up rights by agenda toting feminists who think their view of the world should take precedence over all.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/09/2009 @ 09:23am

209. Reproductive rights are made up rights by agenda toting feminists who think their view of the world should take precedence over all.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/09/2009 @ 09:23am

     Another idiot revealed. And a sexist to boot. And anyone named "Chip" should really just hide somewhere. Best bet..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 09:34am

210. What a tub of bullshit. Fascism left wing? You got to be kidding. Fascists and Socialists are bitter enemies. And I mean violently bitter. Fascism is a right wing phenomenon. It has absolutely nothing to do with the left.

     Christ, why do I even bother with the likes of you? You don't even know the difference between a Socialist and a Fascist..

     Do you wear differnt color socks and wave your hands absently around and about your head? And while we are on the subject, did your mother drop you on your head as a baby? That would at least explain a few things.. Jesus..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 09:18am

     If Fascism and Socialism are mutually exclusive, what was Musolinni; a facist or a socialist?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 10:00am

211. And what about that Hitler fellow? Was he a facist or a socialist.

     I'm pretty sure Nazi had something to do with socialism.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 10:02am

212. I'm sorry, did I miss the announcement that today was make up your own definition day?

     Apparently zen has defined facist to a a right wing asshole and a socialist is anyone who like baseball, motherhood, and apple pie. Of course they are mutually exclusive.

     Before you respond, go to amazon and read the reviews of Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Facism".

     http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini- Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=sr_1_2? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257782722&sr=1-2

     Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 10:06am

213. "If a woman has a legal abortion without the consent of the father of the baby, can he, assuming he knows the time and place of the abortion, have DNA legally extracted from the fetus, match it with his own and then sue the mother for killing his unborn child?"

     she doesn't need "consent of the father" (thankfully)

     "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"

     well, now we know that darin has officially lost any 'intellectual' credibility he once had.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:16am

214. "The HC system we alredy have is the best in the world"

     studies conclude otherwise. much otherwise.

     btw, it makes perfect sense that healthy people are required to buy insurance (to lower costs), but the democrats way of going about this is stupid.

     single payer system for all. now. tax everyone to do it. watch costs plummet.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:18am

215. "She may not have liked the specific examples I gave, but the point is that the possibility of subjectively experiencing something does not mean you shouldn't be able to contribute to a debate on it."

     so thrawn has made the horrible assumption that men, especially the men IN THE LEGISLATURE, are making coherent, rational arguments against abortion. they are not. they are making wacko religious anti-feminist arguments. and the men OUTNUMBER THE WOMEN by HUGE margins at the state and federal level (see: oklahoma).

     and happy's examples about lesbianism and marijuana are WAY off base here (and resemble thrawn's poor cancer example).

     we're talking about pregnancy only. and pregnancy is specifically a female problem/benefit. if men could get pregnany, abortion would BE LEGAL. EVERYWHERE. PERIOD.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:30am

216. This is the country of the wealthy, for the ignoramuses, by the mediocre.

     Posted by simplexaf at 11/09/2009 @ 11:32am

217. I'm pretty sure Nazi had something to do with socialism.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/09/2009 @ 10:02am

     I'm pretty sure you don't have a clue.

     Just because the party name was "The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party", does not mean Hitler was a Socialist. Far from it. Nazism was a form of fascism. Check any reliable sources. Nazism rejected the ideologies of democracy, liberalism and Marxism.

     Italian fascists believed that society should be unified through corporatism. They called it the "Organic State".

     These are far right ideologies that have nothing to do with the left. Even though brain damaged individuals like yourself would like to think so.

     Watch some more Glen Beck if you would like to see fascism in action.

     Socialists believe that unregulated capiltalism will tend to concentrate wealth and resources in the hands of a small minority of society and result in inequality and tyranny.

     Does that sound familiar Troll?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 11:39am

218. Acient Proverb: Get head out of ass before passing gas. Stop this stupid debate between two wrongs! Just write ALL your elected officials, including the President, and tell them to get Wall Street out of Health Care!!! Just tell them, NO More Managed Care and NO more Greedy Insurance companies!!! Health Care MUST NOT be part of the GDP!! This Bill is just another handout of $ to Wall Street!

     Posted by sickoftheright at 11/09/2009 @ 11:46am

219. we're talking about pregnancy only. and pregnancy is specifically a female problem/benefit. if men could get pregnany, abortion would BE LEGAL. EVERYWHERE. PERIOD.

     Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:30am

     complete nonsense. christian men AND women understand that abortion is murder.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 12:10pm

220. "christian men AND women understand that abortion is murder."

     yeah, right! christians NEVER get abortions. bullshit!

     and, anti, christianity has NOTHING to do with it.

     if men could get pregnant, then men would be demanding abortions be legal, safe and affordable.

     period.

     but since women do all the work, then men simply don't care (see: antisocialist).

     Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 12:24pm

221. Well DTBFT, all you had to say was go look up Jonah Goldbergs book, and that was enough. Goldberg is a superduper righty, like I'd take anything he wrote as gospel, NOT.

     Posted by Denise29 at 11/09/2009 @ 12:46pm

222. complete nonsense. christian men AND women understand that abortion is murder.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 12:10pm

     How many times do you have to be told?

     In the first place what a woman does with her body is none of your business.

     And secondly it is not murder. Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person".

     Lets deconstruct the meaning of that. First their is the word "person". The unborn is currently described as either an embryo or a fetus. Neither one is yet a "person" by that definition until it is born. And then there is the word "unlawfull".

     Thankfully as of now it is not "unlawfull" for a woman to have an abortion.

     If you simply must have it your way then work to change these definitions of personhood and laws concering abortion.

     In the meantime, why don't you just mind your own business and keep your pie hole shut?

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 12:50pm

223. And for the responses sure to come. We have never targeted innocent children in war.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/08/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

     LeMay would say different.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 12:51pm

224. But then, so would Billy Pilgrim.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 12:52pm

225. complete nonsense. christian men AND women understand that abortion is murder. Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 12:10pm

     Cloning can make a human being from a skin cell, so having a mole or a wart removed should be considered murder as well. If your hair is falling out, as mine has already done, you should be considered a mass murderer. Oh my gosh, I'm up there with Hitler and Stalin! Stop the killing, don't procreate!

     Posted by raaustin at 11/09/2009 @ 1:00pm

226. Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 12:24pm

     the tide is changing against you Darla. Now, even a plurality of women are pro-life

     <PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

     A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life.>

     http://tinyurl.com/qcuthm

     Mother Teresa said:

     "The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."

     And, evidently this website by and for young pro-life women haven't gotten your message Darla

     http://tinyurl.com/yzzrfx5

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:45pm

227. I'm ready for the same type of insurance for my car! No pre-exsisting conditions can be denied...buy a wreck, get insurance to fix it! No one can be turned down or charged differently...great, drive like a bat out of hell, get as many tickets as you want, not penalties or increases in insurance. Seems stupid when you put it like that doesn't it?

     Posted by american1st at 11/09/2009 @ 1:56pm

228. Christian women have plenty abortions.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 2:03pm

229. Seems stupid when you put it like that doesn't it?

     Posted by american1st at 11/09/2009 @ 1:56pm

     Yeah, that post does seem stupid. Exactly how long did it take for you to come up with an analogy that compares human life and health with the condition of a car?

     Why don't you just walk around with a sign around your neck that say's, "I'm a stupid fucker!"

     Are you actually part of the human race? Or just a human waste?

     I should not generalize, but would you call yourself a Christian?

     Just wondering since your nic is "american1st". Seems a bit ironic as you are certainly no american..

     Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm

230. We have never targeted innocent children in war.

     of the 100,000 civilians killed in the fire bombing of Dresden, at least 20,000 were children. same with the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. LeMay was a war criminal, as was his British counterpart.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 2:16pm

231. The biggest problem when they say "affordable" healthcare is that the DC elite are completely out of touch with what US citizens can afford.

     Posted by TheAfterParty at 11/09/2009 @ 2:37pm

232. Is an abortion the equivalent of drawing blood for a test or X-rays, Mr Nichols?

     Posted by missionunaccomplished at 11/09/2009 @ 3:58pm

233. Posted by chaoszen at 11/09/2009 @ 09:18am

     They are bitter enemies, (socialists and fascists) sometimes. But the distinctions are not moral. Your buddies steadfastly supported the Hitler-Stalin division of Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Reds could see the Jews being driven into the ghettoes from where they were raping Polacks. Your buddy Browder, and Alex Cockburn's own daddy probably knew far more than the rest of us from the beginning, because they had eyes on, boots on the f***ing ground.

     This, the Cockburn group, is the only political group in America that has a history of DIRECT complicity (not just lip service i.e. Henry Ford) with the beginning and middle stages of the Holocaust.

     Fascists and commies can easily get on the fighting side of each other, but it's over ideological minutiae. The Left doesn't even need Fascists for that. It always splinters into myriad groups that stay at each other's throats over misreadings of "Bonapartism and the Dialectics of Permanent Halitosis."

     The MORAL horrors committed by both communism and fascism were supported, disguised, and apologized for, exactly the section of the Left represented by this magazine. No other group in America has that distinction.

     Posted by gangpapist at 11/09/2009 @ 4:10pm

234. Too funny how people who use the "socialist" and "far left" meme can not think for themselves. There is nothing remotely "left" about most of this health care bill. There is good and bad in it, but the only thing we really want is single payer. Nothing else will do, so all of the dittoheads commenting can relax. The insurance companies still own you.

     Posted by pizzmoe at 11/09/2009 @ 4:43pm

235. Cloning can make a human being from a skin cell,

     you must be out of your mind.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 6:16pm

236. christian men AND women understand that abortion is murder. Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 12:10pm

     For a "get out of my face" anti-government I guess that means you have a lot of work to do getting the government to convict and imprison all those 50 million murderous American un-mothers? http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/ 2009/01/03/number-of-abortions-since-1973/

     ...or are you more concerned with added cost of murder legal/penalty expenses to the deficit? Which is more important LIFE, FREEDOM or MONEY?

     and when your done with the USA, how about setting up shop in China where there are approximately 13 million murderous un-mothers per year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8175864.stm

     That's strange, Super Christian Pat Robertson thinks it's OK??? http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/4589748/ Pat-Robertson-Condones-Chinas-Forced-Abortion-Policy-Angers-Right

     I would say a heavy dose of family planning and birth control would go a long way towards reducing abortion, but the "Sanctity of Lifers" are dead against that too ...it's really not that simple is it?

     "In contrast to the consistent life ethic, ... the sanctity of life principle is usually reserved for non-criminal human beings... Critics argue that the sanctity of life principle is undermined by its inconsistencies--in particular its support of the death penalty..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inviolability#Sanctity_of_life

     The new and true "Sanctity of Life" position is more like: "I have a vision of a day when every child that is born is welcome, when men and women are equal, and sexuality is an expression of intimacy, pleasure and tenderness." Elise Ottesen-Jensen, IPPF pioneer 1933. International Planned Parenthood Federation: http://www.ippf.org/en/About/History.htm

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 11/09/2009 @ 9:06pm

237. <i>Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2009 @ 10:30am </i>

     That's a nice effort to shift the burden a bit, but unsuccessful. Remember, your argument is that men are PER SE incapable of having informed opinions concerning abortion. It's not enough to say "well, the people in the legislature make bad arguments...therefore men can't participate in this debate at all." The conclusion doesn't even remotely follow.

     Moreover, your premise isn't right to begin with. The argument people in the legislature use is that because the fetus is (from a moral standpoint) a human being, the state doesn't have to support killing fetuses. The fact that you think they're wrong doesn't automatically mean that they have no right to bring their perspectives to bear.

     You still haven't answered the gaping hole I pointed out in your position: do women have to remain silent about phenomena that they are biologically incapable of experiencing? That's the specific reason you cite for why men shouldn't talk about pregnancy, so to be consistent, anything that women can't experience, they can't talk about. Moreover, you have to take it one step further. For your argument to work, you have to assume the basic premise that if a person cannot subjectively experience a thing, that person has no right to comment about that thing.

     So...can someone who is not of a minority ethnicity hold an opinion on racial profiling?

     My position is simple: if you can make arguments that are independent of subjective experience and are sufficient to support a position on an issue, you have every right to hold a position on the issue. Do pro-life arguments meet this criterion? Clearly yes. The argument I gave above, if true, warrants a pro-life position even for someone who can't themselves be pregnant.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/09/2009 @ 9:30pm

238. Posted by Thrawn at 11/09/2009 @ 9:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     it's a question of privacy and its opposite, forced pregnancy. the "moral" creeps want to control what goes on inside a woman's body, in her womb, the most private place I know of.

     this is why the libertarians are a phony, lying bunch, they are in fact the opposite of what they claim.

     don't like abortions? don't have one. end of story.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 10:59pm

239. The argument I gave above, if true, warrants a pro-life position even for someone who can't themselves be human. Posted by Thrawn at 11/09/2009 @ 9:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 11:07pm

240. <i>don't like abortions? don't have one. end of story.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 10:59pm</i>

     Emile, you continually say smart things...but why does no one understand that this argument doesn't mean anything? Or more precisely...that it begs the very issue in question. If you believe that a fetus is a person, then your position is not only incoherent but morally reprehensible. In other words...your argument only makes sense...if you're right anyway.

     As for your modified quote...I don't even know what it means. It also doesn't respond at all to the reasons I gave for why Darla's position doesn't make any sense.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/09/2009 @ 11:54pm

241. "Far from it. Nazism was a form of fascism. Check any reliable sources. Nazism rejected the ideologies of democracy, liberalism and Marxism."

     You should know better than to cut'n'paste from Wiki, Chaos, but since turnabout is fair play, here's some choice snippets from the "25 Point Programme"

     <All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.> (democracy?)

     <The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all>

     <Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.>

     <...personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.>

     <We demand the nationalisation of all associated industries>

     <We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.>

     <We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.>

     <...immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms...>

     <We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.>

     Sounds pretty socialist(icalish) to me, CZ.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:04am

242. Sounds pretty socialist(icalish) to me, CZ. Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

     He may cut in paste for wikipedia, but he was spot on. Hilter himself admired Mussolini. The second part of Hitler's Mein Kampf, "The National Socialistic Movement" contains this oft cited passage: "I conceived the profoundest admiration for the great man south of the Alps, who, full of ardent love for his people, made no pacts with the enemies of Italy, but strove for their annihilation by all ways and means. What will rank Mussolini among the great men of this earth is his determination not to share Italy with the Marxists, but to destroy internationalism and save the fatherland from it."

     Not convinced? Let's hear about what Mussolini wrote about in the The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism: "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

     A common problem people make in discussing Nazism is realizing that it started out as a socio-political movement known as National Socialism(not libertarian-socialism ie ppl known as socialists here and libertarians outside the US) and then promptly dropped all the nationalism and socialism that they nominally wrote and talked about when Hilter was handed power and became a political ideology centered around race.

     Posted by hdthoreau at 11/10/2009 @ 07:15am

243. Posted by hdthoreau at 11/10/2009 @ 07:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

     not bad, but the Nazis did not drop nationalism, but rather elevated to a übernationalism.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 08:06am

244. Posted by Thrawn at 11/09/2009 @ 11:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     the moral thing is a slippery slope. whose morals? yours? mine?

     the privacy issue transcends individual morality.

     the altered quote was black humor.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 08:09am

245. Posted by Thrawn at 11/09/2009 @ 11:54pm | ignore this person |

     you are always fun to spar with.

     let's look at your issue of the fetus being termed a"person".

     are we speaking medically? abortion is obviously first and foremost a medical procedure.medically the term person is meaningless. medically the fetus is a part of the mother.

     how about legally? I think you can search jurisprudence and you will not find the fetus designated as a "person". the term person is not as elastic as to allow that.

     that leaves morally, which I have dealt with above.

     the laws do not allow me to break into your home and tell you how to raise your children. how can you then justify your breaking into a woman's body, so to speak, to insist that she carry a pregnancy to term?

     in addition the same folks that scream murder, also want to limit any kind of contraception, family planning, sex education, as they have in the past.

     in conclusion, it is a matter of one segment of the population attempting to assert its will over another segment of the population.

     the irony of course is that the same folks scream the loudest about individual liberty. you cannot get more individual than deciding what to do with your own body.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 08:35am

246. you must be out of your mind.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 6:16pm

     Did you totally miss my point? What I wrote was meant to sound crazy. We are coming to the point where technology will give any living human cell the potential for becoming a human being. Many anti abortion advocates claim abortion is criminal because a fertilized egg has the potential of becoming a human being, and therefore abortion at any stage of pregnancy, no matter how early, is murder. I made a reductio ad absurdum argument based on the present or near future potential of biotechnology to clone human beings to show how ridiculous their position is.

     Posted by raaustin at 11/10/2009 @ 08:42am

247. We are coming to the point where technology will give any living human cell the potential for becoming a human being

     no, we're not.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 09:19am

248. Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

     In addition, a cursory look at some of the 25 point program you included shows that its actually evidence for Nazism not being socialist(icalish). Let's keep in mind that Hitler was the Furher and held power absolutely.

     So take a look at the first point: <All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.> This statement is clearly socialist. But Hitler clearly didn't believe this. All citizens did not have equal rights according to him. This is where the fascism, with it's roots in Neo-Hegelian philosophy, creeps in. He believed that the state was subservient to a certain chosen race; someone like Mussolini believed that everyone irrespective of race was subservient to the state.

     <Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.> Now, socialist are not fans of interest, just as they are no fans of profit. But if Hitler was such a socialist how would you explain the fact that the Reich had a legal interest rate of 4.5%(just look up Mefo bills on the interwebs).

     <...personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.> One only needs to have watched popular movies to find that the Nazis wholeheartedly agreed with war profiteering(take Schindler's List for example)

     <We demand the nationalisation of all associated industries> Hitler nationalized very little, in fact, the Nazis profited greatly from 'partnerships' with Mercedes, Volkswagen, BMW, Siemens, Bayer, and other German arms manufacturers none of which were nationalized, I suppose it just slipped his mind.

     Posted by hdthoreau at 11/10/2009 @ 09:20am

249. Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:04am | ignore this person | warn this person

     <We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.> This is something the Nazis wanted greatly and profited from. However, if you remember socialists have a problem with profit. Specifically, socialism wants to eliminate the profit as the motive for production and replace it with human need.

     I think you get the point by now. Hitler was all powerful but he did not implement the 25 point program, and yet he's still a socialist? If you believe that then you must believe a man who says he'll kill someone and doesn't is a murderer. However, if all of that doesn't convince you, go read Hitler's 1927 pamphlet called The Road to Resurgence or do a search for it. The pamphlet was written for top industrialists in which he explains how if he gained power he would not implement the anti-capitalist measures he described in his 25 point plan. The Nazis and Hitler suppressed the trade union movement of the Social Democratic Party. The very idea that Nazism and socialism are similar is beyond laughable and not borne by even a superficial analysis.

     Posted by hdthoreau at 11/10/2009 @ 09:21am

250. Posted by hdthoreau at 11/10/2009 @ 09:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

     of course.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 09:31am

251. no, we're not.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 09:19am

     Thanks for the well thought out and careful refutation of my claim.

     Posted by raaustin at 11/10/2009 @ 10:34am

252. Thanks for the well thought out and careful refutation of my absurd claim. Posted by raaustin at 11/10/2009 @ 10:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 11:03am

253. raaustin

     it is you who has to substantiate your assertion.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 11:16am

254. Assertion: Humans can be cloned from skin cells.

     Proof: 1. Sheep have already been cloned from skin cells (remember Dolly).

     2. Most humans are sheep.

     QED.

     Posted by raaustin at 11/10/2009 @ 1:03pm

255. The cell used as the donor for the cloning of Dolly was taken from a mammary gland,

     sheep ain't men, nor women. a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 1:12pm

256. Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 1:12pm There is no fundamental difference between men and women on the one hand and sheep or rats on the other. We have bigger brains, that's all. Rats have, relatively speaking, longer tails. Big deal.

     Alright, I was being a little facetious. But are you saying that humans cannot be cloned? I don't like the idea of human cloning and consider it ethically objectionable, but in principal, you cannot deny that it is technically feasible. There is no fundamental reason that it cannot be done with humans. Humans are animals little different from sheep or any other mammal. There is no magical hurdle to cross. If you can extract DNA from a cell, you can, in principle, clone that organism.

     I don't understand why you keep harping on this. My purpose was to use the idea of human cloning as a scaffold upon which to build an argument against the anti choice crowd.

     Posted by raaustin at 11/10/2009 @ 1:32pm

257. you have NOT substantiated your assertion, but rather repeated it, and that does not make it true.

     Humans are animals little different from sheep or any other mammal.

     whattabunchofnonsense.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 3:33pm

258. <i>Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 08:35am </i>

     2 notes at the top:

     1) I always try to be fun to spar with 2) You are as well

     That said, I'll grant you both the medical and legal points because I don't think they really matter. The only relevant argument here is the moral one.

     I don't understand what your claim that privacy "transcends individual morality" can possibly mean. The assertion of privacy is itself a moral claim; it's a claim that it is wrong for someone to invade what I seek to keep private. You can't hold privacy as outside the moral realm, because privacy relies on moral premises for its persuasive force. Even if you try to fall back on pragmatics...that too relies on the moral premise that pragmatism is the most just or utile approach.

     This is why the oft-used "you can't legislate morality" doesn't make any sense; we hardly legislate anything else. All law is, directly or indirectly, based on foundational moral assumptions. Even if you go by some "harm principle," namely "the law should only punish harm to others," that itself is a moral statement (the only kinds of action immoral enough to punish are those that harm others). Plus, the claim of pro-life activists is precisely that abortion DOES harm someone else.

     This, in turn, is why pro-life advocates (and pro-choice advocates, for that matter; Darla's claim would apply to them too) don't have to be exclusively women. There is a debate, still ongoing, in moral philosophy (and yes, it includes people who are non-religious) as to whether a fetus is morally a person. What neither you nor Darla has explained is why those arguments can't be made by someone who isn't a woman. I haven't seen any reason yet, and I'm pretty sure none exists.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 3:46pm

259. What neither you nor Darla has explained is why those arguments can't be made by someone who isn't a woman Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I have never made this argument.

     what you fail to address is the ambiguity and subjectivity of morals, which varies from individual to individual, from society to society.

     take the commandment to keep the sabbath. preposterous.

     or the commandment not to eat shellfish, pork etc, absurd

     the Saudi morality demands the stoning of adulterers, I applaud adulterers, if it feels good, do it.

     there simply is not one morality, and that is why our laws cannot be simply based on morals.

     again, if abortion is against YOUR morals, don't have one, I mean that in the larger sense.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 4:04pm

260. <i>Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 4:04pm </i>

     First off, "if it feels good, do it" is a ridiculous moral standard, but at the same time, I agree with you that stoning adulterers is barbaric.

     Again, you say "our laws cannot be simply based on morals." Give me something else on which they could be based, then, which doesn't itself rely on moral predicates.

     Finally, the idea that there simply is not one morality seems partially true and partially false. I'd argue that there is objective good and objective evil, but I'd also agree with you that lively debate goes on as to which is which. If anything, the fact of debate usually indicates that there is something to debate about.

     So:

     1) Tell me what you can base laws on which has no moral predicates

     2) Explain to me why moral arguments don't mean anything

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 4:41pm

261. whattabunchofnonsense.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 3:33pm

     You do a worse job of substantiating your dismissal of my points than I do in supporting them. Are you claiming there is something about humans that biologically differentiates them from other mammals and makes human cloning impossible? I think that would put you at odds with just about any biologist in the world.

     Posted by raaustin at 11/10/2009 @ 5:15pm

262. oh please, just stop the nonsense.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 6:35pm

263. Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you're still avoiding my point. see above.

     morality is subjective.

     let's take murder. laws against it can be predicated solely on pragmatic grounds. murder leads to revenge and unending feuds. these are detrimental to society. ergo, laws against murder, and morality has nothing to do with it.

     I am morally opposed to the death penalty. some states do not allow capital punishment, some do. following you, with objective good and objective evil, they should all allow capital punishment, or none should. morality is too elastic, too subjective. that is the point you keep avoiding.

     "if it feels good, do it", may even precede civilization itself.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 7:04pm

264. <i>Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 7:04pm </i>

     Yeah...oddly enough, I suspect that "if it feels good do it" DID precede civilization. As did beating a guy on the head with a club when he stole the place next to the fire. You really want that as your precedent?

     I don't think we're going to resolve our difference on whether morality is subjective. I just think you're mistaken, and since neither one of us can give definitive analyses for why we're right, I'm not sure how much further we can go on that front. However, I'm not sure you actually believe morality is subjective, though, unless you actually don't believe that progress exists, and that certain acts really are better than others. The next time you react to a war crime with revulsion and say "this is hideously wrong," ask yourself whether that's anything more than just a personal emotional response with no truth-value whatsoever. If you think there is something more to it, you've rejected the idea that morality is wholly subjective.

     Let's talk about the death penalty. Should there be an all-or-nothing answer? Yeah, probably. I support having states as "laboratories of democracy" when you're talking about policy differences, but when it comes to sharp moral divides, I think all states should do what is right. Or as someone I know likes to say...good things are good.

     Finally, on pragmatics. Even that relies on moral premises because it's an answer to the question "what ought our society use as a standard for law?" Any standard for laws ultimately relies on a particular vision of the good. Moreover, moral discourse DOES mean something, and there's no way you can pretend it's irrelevant.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 8:51pm

265. "The HC system we alredy have is the best in the world."

     Give me a break. Everyone knows this is a fallacy. Every indicator: infant/maternal mortality, cost, access, preventable deaths, etc. tell us that we are far behind the best in the world. When health care international health care economists meet, they snicker at the US because it is in such a state of disarray. We need single payer.

     Posted by kirquaker at 11/10/2009 @ 10:34pm

266. I don't think we're going to resolve our difference on whether morality is subjective. I just think you're mistaken,

     c'mon now, I have shown by numerous examples that morality IS subjective.

     "I'd argue that there is objective good and objective evil,"

     this is merely YOUR morality. and you are holding up your morality for everyone. and that is precisely the problem. there is no übermorality, which trumps all others.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:37am

267. "The HC system we alredy have is the best in the world."

     and we have the best wars in the world.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 12:10pm

268. <i>Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 09:37am </i>

     Actually...you haven't shown that all. You've shown that moral disagreement exists. If anything, that helps my position, because usually when you disagree about something you admit that there actually is a truth but you're not sure who's right about it. That's not always true, but disagreement certainly doesn't entail that morality is subjective. Grey does not prove the non-existence of black and white.

     Can I prove definitively that morality is objective? Probably not. You certainly can't offer proof that it's subjective. Maybe this means we're stuck at a standstill, but at the end of the day, I just don't think your position can account for the depth and irreducibility of our moral experience.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 9:00pm

269. all those examples, and what have you got? NOTHING

     try addressing my examples.

     here's another one, this one shows the mutability of morals.

     when I was young, couples cohabiting was most immoral. today? not so. morals change all the time. there is no objective morality. and you have not shown it by examples, you are chasing your tail.

     homosexuality is another example. it was illegal, based on some twisted morality. oral sex, anal sex between married couples was illegal, and immoral. those absurdities have been washed away by time. the list is endless.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 9:38pm

270. look at the ten commandments. some are reflected in our laws, but others are not at all. blasphemy and heresy were punished by death, now, who cares. they would be laughed out of court. how can there be objective morality in the face of change?

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 9:46pm

271. usury is another example. it was obviously immoral at one time, but is no longer, quite the opposite. look at you credit card bill.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 9:47pm

272. <i>Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 9:38pm </i>

     Your argument isn't an argument against objective morals, anymore than a shift to the heliocentric theory signifies that there isn't objective truth in astronomy. By your standard, the fact that scientific theories continually change proves that there's no objective truth in science. But that's ridiculous, and you know it. The very notion of progress implies that there exists some objective standard through which we can evaluate certain things as better than others.

     In fact, when you say that "absurdities have been washed away by time"...many people who believe in an objective morality would agree with you! They would say "yeah, we got it wrong, now we're learning." Some would call it progress, others would call it regress, but the fact that people disagree doesn't prove there isn't a right answer.

     Do I agree that this is, to some extent, a question of intuition? Yeah, though I don't think intuition should automatically be distrusted (vision or hearing, anyone? prove those senses are reliable without begging the question...). From my standpoint, my intuition signifies that objective right and wrong exist, even if I don't always get them right. None of what you've presented gives me a particularly strong reason to doubt that. Believe that I'm fallible? Of course. Believe that there's no truth about morals to begin with? Not so much.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/12/2009 @ 3:59pm

273. astronomy vs morals? not an apt comparison.

     a greek astronomer stated the heliocentric "theory" around 300BC. that knowledge was then lost and buried for nearly 2000 years, when it was "rediscovered".in that interval the geocentric theory was not true, it was a world as the church among others wished it would be.

     Newtons theories of physics held sway for centuries. they explained the physical world as it was able to be perceived during that time. they were and are true.since Einstein however, we have a more complete view of visible and invisible phenomena.

     morals are an entirely different matter. they cannot be observed, and they cannot be disproved. it is finally a matter of philosophy.

     the problem with your view is that you believe your standard is an objective one. everyone believes their standard is THE objective one. since they are obviously different in different places and in different times, that cannot be.

     one more example. say that everyone believes that murder is wrong, a moral judgement. yet we distinguish between premeditated murder, and spontaneous murder. one is worse than the other, and our sanctions reflect that. so there isn't ONE standard of the moral prohibition, but rather at least two.the Mayans and many others applauded certain murders, we called them human sacrifice. there was in fact no prohibition against that kind of murder at all. where be thy objective morality?

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2009 @ 4:41pm

274. we may be getting to the end of a string here, and that's fine, though I am willing to listen to anything you care to articulate on this subject. this is finally a discussion which has been going on for millennia.

     Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2009 @ 4:43pm

275. <i>Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2009 @ 4:43pm </i>

     I think we're probably getting close, but I'm equally glad to hear your thoughts.

     I think one of the biggest issues here is how much weight you're willing to give to intuition. Personally, I'm willing to give a lot of weight to it, or at the very least, I'm not sure why I should give less weight to it than I do to my intuitions about sight, hearing and so on.

     Science tries desperately to make itself neutral, but at the end of the day it relies on our basic sensory intuitions. After all, there's no way to scientifically establish that our senses are accurate without relying on precisely those same senses. That's why I'm not convinced that your observability criterion isn't decisive, and why being rooted in philosophy isn't the least bit unique to morality (see, for instance, Descartes); it's entirely true for science as well.

     I tend to regard our understanding of morality as not too distinct from our understanding of the universe. Our senses aren't perfect, and we frequently get things wrong. Sometimes we're off by just a little, and sometimes we're off by an awful lot. Our understanding changes through time; it's not on a constant, unbroken trail of improvement, but I think that progress happens. I tend to think that societies can and often do improve over their predecessors, and I can only call it improvement if there is an objective standard of good against which comparative evaluations can be made.

     My vision, touch, smell taste and hearing tell me there's a world out there, even if I frequently misperceive it. My moral sense similarly tells me that good and evil exist. I may get them wrong, maybe even often, but I have a hard time believing that there's nothing to "get" at all.

     Posted by Thrawn at 11/12/2009 @ 9:50pm