Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.
why is it that some people can not see what is being done by inches because the populous would not accept it if implemented by the yard
That is the undeniable outcome. The govt does not do things 'just a bit' They are in for a penny in for a pound
they are going to sucker you chumps with their initial approach where it is Kombayah we just want to offer a cheap alternative, to well we need to expand to help you with this and than to help you with this and than it is the only thing available
You have just given your life, your health, and 1/6th of the ecomony (which will get bigger with the govt involved) to those 'nobelmen in washington who thankfully have only your best interest at heart"
UHC does not come in one form. Stop propagating that notion.
That said, I'm for legal abortion with some restrictions, but UHC should not pay for it.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
From some Christian website :
Christians Decry Tax-Funded Abortion in Health Care Bill | Christianpost.com
Now I don't know whether or not they've read the bill but from what I gather there seems to be no mention of abortion in the bill. At all. I mean the way I see it, the government and administrations has a million other social programs in which they could use tax payer money to fund abortions. Why wait for a bill they're gambling so much political money on to have tax payer funded abortions?In the 1,018-page health care bill, there is no mention of abortion much less federal funding for abortion. However, opponents of abortion are worried about the silence on the issue. They maintain that without an explicit barring of federal funding for abortion, it could be covered by tax dollars.
Either way I explained to you already why being pro-UHC and being pro-choice are not positions which are in opposing of each other which was the question you posed. They're not even within the same paradigm. The government doesn't fund abortions and pro-choice is a matter of whether or not you should make reproductive decisions based on the beliefs, customs and values of other people. As of today there are millions of poor Americans who regardless of their position on abortion had to choose whether or not to have an abortion. For whatever reason they claim. It doesn't matter how religious the religious aren't above 'the choice' in any way. Matter of fact they have just as many abortions as the non-religious. Your question is a false dichotomy.
Last edited by Hatuey; 08-26-09 at 02:29 AM.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
You're right. Pro-choice should be called "pro-abortion rights" and pro-life should be renamed "pro-human rights" or "pro right to live".I do not consider myself "pro-choice", but as "pro abortion rights". I think the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms used by those afraid of the word abortion.
What makes you believe the government will not be focused on profit? If they don't seek to make a profit, the program will bankrupt itself or become a burden on this country, draining our cash and adding to the national debt.I trust the government more than an insurance company who is focused on profit.
And the government DOES want money. Hence the 27th amendment. If you honestly think that government cares more for you than themselves then you need to wake up. They are just as greedy and hungry for power and money as corporations. To deny this is playing right into their hands.
I honestly don't understand why people believe that government programs can be successful if they don't actually make any money yet spend trillions. How can such a program be deemed successful?
Last edited by Lakryte; 08-26-09 at 10:53 AM.
I am pro choice but against the Health care socialism.
THE GREATEST FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO OPPRESS OTHERS
"I'll govern for all the ambitions of Scotland, and for all of the people who imagine that we can live in a better land. This party, the Scottish party, your party, carries your hope, and we shall carry it carefully, and make the nation proud."
Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland, Scottish National Party
Likewise, my support for universal health care isn't based on government control, it is based on reducing overall medical expenditures and maintaining higher productivity in the workforce. I don't particularly care if people get to choose their own insurer or even their own doctor as long as the system works.
You are so quick to call other people blind but you fail to accept that those other people are actually right. Abortion is not mentioned in the bill. That is Exactly why it will be covered by the bill. The Supreme Court ruled that unless specifically excluded, abortion counts as a "medical procedure". Medical procedures are covered under the current healthcare bill.Originally Posted by Hatuey
@P/N excellent video by the way at the top of the page.