The American Spectator

John| 8.10.09 @ 1:57PM

Abortion is one of the cornerstones of modern liberalism. They'd never allow Obamacare to pass without the inclusion of legislation that would permit public funds for abortion.

Dan| 8.10.09 @ 3:33PM

Why is it that the people that yell the loudest in support of abortion, are the same folks that will hold a candle light vigil at the state pen., protesting the execution of some vile murderer ?

Bob| 8.10.09 @ 3:35PM

Antle, I've read the bill. Perhaps you can point me to the language in the bill that says elective abortions are covered? Perhaps you can show my where the majority of people are in favor of repealing the Hyde amendment to Medicaid? I guess under your logic the public could also pay for penis enlargement? The same logic would apply, right???? Perhaps you can point me to any current large scale health plans that have elective abortions included? Hmmmm....

There are lots of good reasons not to like the proposed health care initiative -- the primary one being that it doesn't reduce health care costs -- and that is the major issue here. Bringing this up just plays up to the extremist right audience -- but it just isn't really true.

I know you don't think people will actually read the bill -- and they probably won't -- so you can get away with this, but you know it is just a cheap shot with blanks.

And please don't refer to the comment made by Orzag -- he's a budget guy and didn't want to state an opinion on the issue and did a bad job of backing away from the question.

Pete| 8.10.09 @ 3:53PM

"But even the most sympathetic reading suggests, absent any provision to the contrary, that the federal government would subsidize the purchase of health coverage that includes elective abortions even if it is not subsidizing the abortions directly."

Bob, look into your crystal ball or draw on your 5 decades of experience as a health care executive and let me know if you think there will be a "provision to the contrary." After all, nothing "saves" money more than whacking a kid before it needs healthcare.

Dan| 8.10.09 @ 4:12PM

Pete, well said. I'll soon be 63, I guess it won't be to much longer before someone decides it might be more cost effective to pull the plug on us geezers.

Solo| 8.10.09 @ 4:44PM

Dan Wrote:
"Pete, well said. I'll soon be 63, I guess it won't be to much longer before someone decides it might be more cost effective to pull the plug on us geezers. "

You might want to take a look at this story from Oregon:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Oregon Health Services has advised a 64 year old terminal cancer patient that she can't have the life sustaining cancer drug she requires because it costs $4000.00 per month.

They did advise her in a nice letter that they WILL pay for a suicide pill--it's only $50 Bucks a pop!
Note: Oregon has assisted suicide law.

Welcome to the "Brave New World", boys and girls.

Bob| 8.10.09 @ 4:47PM

Pete, the Dems are not into cost savings -- that is MY problem with the bill. The Dems are into "cover the uninsured" and "big business is bad". There is already a provision to the contrary -- it's called the Hyde Amendment and the Dems have said they will not try to rescind it. And you are going to try and make ME pay for Terri Schiavo cases, right?

And to set the record straight, I worked in a number of industries. I only worked in insurance and finance for about a decade until I retired.

And Dan, if I have to be hooked up to a machine, you can pull the plug on me. Enjoy....

Bob| 8.10.09 @ 4:51PM

Solo - most insurance policies won't pay for very expensive or experimental drugs either. In addition, most of the private insurance policies have a lifetime benefit. After that, you're on your own. Furthermore, if a person can no longer work, they lose their coverage (after COBRA) and then they will be on their own again. You are telling us nothing new.

Pete| 8.10.09 @ 5:19PM

Osama and his cronies have already found ways around the Hyde Amendment and you know it. And what do they care about established law, anyhow - why would anyone believe anything that comes out of his mouth any more? But, back to the original post, my point was only to say that I can read too, and you twisted the author's words, as usual. I am against the cost aspect of this, to0, of course, but welcome any and all who oppose it on any logical basis. The inevitable (continued and magnified) federal funding of abortion is a fine basis - made even better by the zeal and passion these folks bring to the table.

Bob| 8.10.09 @ 5:27PM

Actually, Pete, technically I UNTWISTED the author's words which were quite "twisted" in the first place. That was my point.

After spending a lifetime in business, one of the things you learn is that no one can predict the outcome of complex models. We don't know if any of the plans, Democrat or Republican, will save money. That's why I think we need some "test markets" before we roll a plan out. You don't just roll out something this complex.

It's just like tax cuts. You'd think they would stimulate the economy, but we now have the macro economic data to prove they don't. The economy is another complex model that defies simple thoughts. Remember, people once thought the world was flat.

Pete| 8.10.09 @ 5:40PM

Wow.

With respect to your first paragraph, I just can't see it...must be my lack of full lifetime business experience.

With respect to the second, if we can't predict, I'll go with the folks who lie to me less and don't want me to pay for their experimentation. (And of course there are plenty of failed examples of the principles here and abroad.)

I can't even begin to address paragraph three and won't, given that it is a clear attempt to shift the subject (and cause outrage with its stupidity) and that I am still in the business world.

W. James Antle III| 8.10.09 @ 6:16PM

Bob, if you know anything about the history of public funding of abortion -- which your comments suggest you don't -- you would know that your arguments are a red herring. Abortion does not have to be mentioned in the bill for administrators to decide to cover it (abortion was not mentioned in the Medicaid statute but Medicaid paid for elective abortions prior to the Hyde Amendment) but there does have to be a specific prohibition like the Hyde Amendment to keep it from happening, because abortion is currently considered a legal medical procedure.

That said, the Senate bill does mention reproductive health services that supportive senators and Senate aides have confirmed could include abortion. The Senate HELP Committee held at least four different votes to clarify that this language was abortion-neutral, but all four of these amendments were defeated.

The House bill doesn't specifically mention abortion, but people on both sides of the issue acknowledge that it would empower the relevant federal authorities to cover abortion. An amendment to specifically exclude abortion coverage was voted on and defeated.

The pro-choice supporters of the Capps Amendment, an attempt at a compromise that would specifically allow some health plans to not include abortion as a required basic service, assumes that the federal government will subsidize health insurance that covers abortion. Even the Capps Amendment wouldn't prevent such plans from being subsidized, they would merely allow a choice of pro-life plans that don't cover abortion. And the Capps Amendment has not yet been adopted!

The Hyde Amendment is totally irrelevant to this discussion. The Hyde Amendment only applies to funds appropriated through the annual HHS appropriations bill. The subsidies involved in HR 3200 do not originate in this process and are not covered.

Secondly, the Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law that must be repealed but an annual patch on the HHS appropriations that can lapse any year it is not passed by Congress and signed by the president.

The federal government's prohibitions on Medicaid funding of elective abortions, elective abortions through the Indian Health Services, and subsidies to insurance plans that cover abortion services for federal employees are all specific provisions.

Bob| 8.10.09 @ 7:33PM

James, I'm not a Washingtonian, but the House Dems claim that the entire health care bill is subject to the Hyde Amendment and there is significant Democrat support to keep it in. The amendment to the House healthcare bill that was adopted by the Energy and Commerce Committee prohibits federal funds from explicitly subsidizing abortion in the private healthcare plans to be offered through the health insurance exchange.

Again, I'm not a legislative expert, but from my reading of the facts, the Hyde amendment applies -- at least the Dems are convinced that it does. I'd advise you to check this out with a non-biased source who doesn't have a vested interest in Obama losing.

Pete, I've showed the data on several occasions. Here is a chart of GDP adjusted for inflation over time. Please note that the slope of the line does not increase when we've had tax cuts nor does it decline when we've had tax increases. Stupid? Yes you are.... If you disagree, please show me the inflation adjusted data graphed over the last 30-40 years. No one has been able to prove, on a macro basis, that tax cuts are stimulative. I don't want to see point in time numbers -- they can be manipulated. I want to see the data graphed on a yearly basis.

NOBAMACARE| 8.10.09 @ 8:00PM

Bob's an abortion troll--he knows damned well that abortion will be covered by ObamaCare. Abortion is a lot cheaper than insuring a person for life, and Obama has touted his health care plan as a huge (cough, cough) savings measure.

Besides, Planned Parenthood is a major player in ObamaCare, and they want their investment back.

Pete| 8.10.09 @ 8:01PM

Bob, as important as you seem to think you are, I do not follow you and your rantings, so I haven't seen your version of the truth on the subject. (nor is any graph evident in your post) I jump in whenever I can't stand the lies you happen to spewing on the day in case someone decides in a weak moment to actually believe you. Any numbers can be manipulated (as you know from being CEO of thirty companies in as many industries), but I'll keep voting for the folks who steal less of my money and you can keep voting yourself handouts and social change.

W. James Antle III| 8.10.09 @ 8:16PM

Bob, almost every single assertion you make in your latest comment is factually incorrect. While House Democrats are emphasizing that their bill does not repeal the Hyde Amendment, they do not claim that the Hyde Amendment applies to the entire health care bill. Not only do they not, they could not -- not if you understand what the Hyde Amendment actually is.

The Hyde Amendment is not a blanket prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion. It is a prohibition that specifically applies to funds that flow through the HHS appropriations process, aimed at preventing Medicaid funding of elective abortions. The Indian Health Service also has a Hyde Amendment provision.

The Hyde Amendment does not, for example, cover the insurance the federal government offers either its civilian employees or members of the military. Elective abortion coverage in their health insurance plans is prohibited under separate statutes (which, unlike the Hyde Amendment, do not have the potential to lapse and would have to be explicitly repealed).

The funds involved in the public option and the subsidies for insurance plans offered through the health insurance exchange are not subject to any of these restrictions. It is a new, separate funding stream. All of the amendments in both houses of Congress that would impose similar restrictions have been defeated in committee.

The only part of the health care plan that is affected by the Hyde Amendment is the Medicaid expansion. As long as the Hyde Amendment remains in force, Medicaid won't be able to pay for abortions. I am not aware of any knowledgeable Democrat who contests this and even if one did, their interpretation would not hold up in court unless past precedent was ignored.

The Energy and Commerce Committee amendment to which you are referring is the Capps Amendment, offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA). The only substantive concession this compromise amendment offers pro-lifers is that it prevents abortion from being named as a basic service that is mandatory for all health insurance plans offered through the exchange. Insurers would retain the option of offering health care plans that do not cover abortion in any way.

The other part of the compromise is purely cosmetic: the abortion procedure itself would have to be covered through premium funds rather than taxpayer funds. But the federal government would still subsidize the plans covering abortions -- it is an accounting gimmick more than a meaningful distinction. It is a more liberal policy than that which regulates health insurance purchased for federal employees and the military.

Two more points: If the Hyde Amendment covered the entire health care bill, the Capps Amendment would be unnecessary. And the Capps Amendment has not yet been adopted by the full House, meaning the bill pre-amendment is more liberal still.

ds80| 8.10.09 @ 10:39PM

Bob: PWNED.

ds80| 8.10.09 @ 10:43PM

Bob, I forgot to ask: do you want your arse handed to you in a sling or a paper bag?

WJA III: excellent original post. Most excellent, however, were the reasoned rebuttals of the red herrings.

Basil Plumley| 8.10.09 @ 11:28PM

I agree-
Great job Mr. Antle!!

Bob ought to sue whoever gave him the false information that he claimed was true. There is no way, with Bob's great reading comprehension, that Bob could misunderstand what he read.

Oh wait ...... we are talking about the all-great, all-wise, too-smart-for-us-mere-mortals Bobama .............. ah, nevermind.

Basil Plumley| 8.10.09 @ 11:35PM

On second thought ............. I take back what I said to you Mr. Antle.

I just realized that the bill Bob read was written in Aramaic. Since, you don't read Aramaic as well as Bob, it is possible that you may have misinterpreted what the bill said.
Therefore, since the bill was written in Aramaic, I will defer to Bobama's interpretation of what the bill means. I apologize for any misunderstandings and jumping to any conclusions.

Angel| 8.11.09 @ 12:22AM

Stop being so snotty, boys: Don't you know who Bob is? He's grew up in the 'hood in South Central Los Angels, he attended Harvard and he got all As in Econ.

I've read his auto-biographical drivel so many times, I could recite it in my sleep. Talk about a nightmare.

Show a little respect for Bob's acumen in graphs and charts.

Angel| 8.11.09 @ 12:28AM

He grew up in the 'hood in South Central Los Angeles,....

Sorry, I've grown weary of "Bob."

Michael Dooley| 8.11.09 @ 7:11AM

“Why is it that the people that yell the loudest in support of abortion are the same folks that will hold a candle light vigil at the state pen. protesting the execution of some vile murderer ?”

I always wondered where these clichés come from. I am as close to an abolitionist as one can get against abortion and I have never stood outside a state prison as some miscreant received his final cocktail. The only time I hold a candle for anything is during Christmas Eve Mass.

On the other hand, I believe in the fundamental justice of the death penalty. The obvious difference between Ted Bundy and Nicky Newborn is one of them doesn’t go around snuffing out other people’s candles. But I tell you what, Dan. If you promise that there will be no more abortions if there will be no more executions, I’ll take the deal. Where do I sign the papers?

Basil Plumley| 8.11.09 @ 8:20AM

@ Michael Dooley

I think you have proven Dan's point. If you can not understand the difference, then your moral relativism compass is stuck.

It's a shame that the unborn are not afforded the same rights of fair trials and lengthy appeals as Ted Bundy.

Jeremiah| 8.11.09 @ 8:25AM

Bob, I already told you to shut up.
Good news gentlemen, a vicious a.sshole has recently been outed:
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/08/mommy-why-does-my-kindergarten-teacher.html

Send this Griffin guy your best regards whenever you can

Bob| 8.11.09 @ 8:56AM

OK, Antle, I've checked your facts and you seem to be right on this one. Thanks for the follow-up.

Pete, sorry for the missing link -- here it is:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

Now, perhaps, you can find the data to back up your premise. Again, it needs to be inflation adjusted and must contain all data points. Good luck. I will take a non-response to mean you either don't understand the data or can't back your statement up.

Ken (Old Texican| 8.11.09 @ 9:36AM

Mr. Antle
Thank you for the follow through. Nice swing heh!
Never fear. You beat his head bloody, but he will take a deep breath and be back tomorrow, lying about something else as usual.
Best regards

Pete| 8.11.09 @ 10:35AM

Bob, I am afraid you will be unable to salvage any victory from this string, as far from the original subject as you have strayed in the attempt. Let's review:

1) I made no statement nor advanced any premise - that was you, in an attempt to divert attention from your lies with respect to abortion and the healthcare debate. Specifically, I reacted to your assertion thusly: "it is a clear attempt to shift the subject (and cause outrage with its stupidity)" So, I did call you stupid, and the proof for that is found wherever you post.

2) As for your assertion on tax cuts and the supposed proof in the graph, I offer as a rebuttal that same graph. I challenge anyone to draw any meaningful conclusions from that graph at that scale, except for perhaps from the very end as your messiah's grand stimulus begins to take effect. (did you think I wouldn't look at the graph???) Here's some reading that might help you though: http://useconomy.about.com/library/Treasury_Supplyside_Report.pdf
I am sure your next post will say how you used to have Geithner's job and know everything, etc....

3) Returning to the original subject of this string, it is my sincere hope that none of the readers here let your diversionary tactics cloud the fact that you took an epic factual beating.

Until next time, oh captain of industry and thinker of deep thoughts, I bid you farewell.

Dan| 8.11.09 @ 12:53PM

Michael, you miss read my statement. I said that those who support abortion were apt to be the ones to be anti death penalty.

Angel| 8.11.09 @ 2:54PM

Dan, you're right: Dooley misunderstood your post. I agree with him on one thing, though: If no death penalty meant no abortion--I'd sign the papers in a nanosecond.

My heart broke a long time ago over the sorrowful slaughter of our innocent babies.

Dan| 8.11.09 @ 7:55PM

Angel, at least were in agreement about abortion, to me its wrong period.
Now as far as the death penalty for murder, well we might need to talk about that.
I am open to the end of the death penalty if we can be assured that these people would never pose a threat to others ever again.
For example we had a murderer here in Texas some years ago who was sentenced to death for the brutal murder of 3 teenagers. When the death penalty was halted in I think 1972, his sentence was reduced to life. Later he was released on parole, he then abducted and murdered at least 4 young women. He was sentenced to death again, this time the state followed through and he was executed. I'm sure you can google Kenneth Mcduff and read about it yourself.

Angel| 8.11.09 @ 9:18PM

Dan, I'm all about sweet innocent babies; and if it means their lives would be spared, I'd consider life WITHOUT parole for murderers.

I'll never understand liberals in a million years, you know?

Dan| 8.11.09 @ 9:28PM

We do agree. For me its a very special issue.
My daughter inlaw had a very difficult pregnancy with her twins. The Dr's recommended abortion.
She had the twins just a few days after the time late term would have been legal. Both babies weighed less that 1lb and were in ICU for 3 months.
Today they are happy and healthy 3 year olds. We are so grateful that my daughter inlaw refused the easy way out.

Angel| 8.11.09 @ 11:56PM

Good for you and congratulations to your family! Your son did good in choosing her for his wife.

I understand difficult pregnancies--I've had more than my share. They are VERY scary! I look at my kids and every one of them was worth the pain and the worry. I love them to bits.

God bless you and your family.

Dee| 8.17.09 @ 1:33PM

Probably most of you (commenters and the writer) have never read the maternity provisions on a standard private insurance policy.

If the abortion is considered "elective," as in not necessary for any health benefit, it is not covered. Period. It's like cosmetic surgery. I don't know if the mother's life is in peril, if they pay for it or not, but the only way you'd be able to confirm this in the healthcare bill is to look at EXCLUSIONS, which is how insurers always list it. Don't make assumptions that it will be paid for just because you can't find it- that's ignorant and irresponsible.