ABORTION!!!!!
 

i like following politics because it is fun for me to try and figure out what they are really up to. i base my thoughts on almost zero facts, it is mostly speculation on What is happening.

now, this amendment they added to the House Health care bill that blocks women from getting abortions under any policy purchased off the federal exchange is an interesting thing. from what i have seen on the news, there wqs ALREADY a compromise worked out that everyone liked and then suddenly POOF an amendment that no sane person could like.

Pelosi could have stopped this, i know like 40 congressmen threatended to vote against the whole thing, but 26 of them voted against it anyhow so i am of the opinion that the 14 who voted yes, would have voted yes anyway.

i think this amendment was a trick.

see, this works two ways for the DEMS in my opinion:

1. For the next three or four weeks, the rabid right is going to be all over this. they will tea party their asses off. they HATE abortion, and they are not going to give an inch. it is going to drive the blue dogs dems , and they are gonna be forced into voting for whatever gets them back to the middle cause otherwise they are going to lose their women voters.

2. i think the DEMS know this bill is going to fail spectacularly. and now they have a boogeyman to blame it on. ANYONE attached to the idea of killing health care cause they want to essentially kill abortion rights for women is going to be in deep shit come 2010. a lot of moderate people are against abortion, but support women having the right to choose. i think there will be a huge loss of seats for the republicans on this point, they may get their Glen Beck crowd all happy, but they will loose women and a huge chunk of moderate men for the abortion BS, not to mention backlash over killing health care.

this is what i think so far, it is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

Are abortions covered by normal health insurance if they are for reasons other than that pregnancy might be a danger to the mother? I can understand that not being covered, because it's almost cosmetic
Will the nationalized healthcare cover abortions which are done for the safety and well-being of the mother? Because, if not, that would be a travesty.

They'll still be able to get abortions completely outside of healthcare, right? its just that the federal government won't handle it...?

frm what i gather it is like this:

1. right now most (85%) private health plans cover abortion.

2. only health plans traded on the federal exchange would be barred from covering abortions. but since the fed exchange will be pretty much the only place to buy affordable health insurance, most middle class and poor women would not be able to get a plan that covers abortion, regardless of the reason for it.

so unless you are uber wealthy, a woman would essentially be unable to get health insurance that covers an abortion becuase no insurance company is going to touch it because then their plans would then be removed from the exchange.

in effect it would be an abortion ban for the people most vulnerable to needing coverage for an abortion.

the laws of supply and demand suggest that if the gov't enters the market as a price leader, the rest of the companies will drop their prices to compete

also, people can just get separate abortion insurance elsewhere

and it's not like abortion even costs all that much in the first place

Most poor people go to Planned Parenthood for abortions. They have programs to help people.

How much do abortions cost Chojin? Had to get many?

When my wife first got pregnant back in the day she went to Planned Parenthood just to get examined. Because they are super cheap if not free, I dont really remember. Anyway, when she was there they were almost pushing abortion on her.

That's cause planned parenthood used to be RETARD/POOR PERSON MURDER INCORPORATE AKA EUGENIC CUNTBAGS OF AMERICA'

i talked about this with a girl that I know got an abortion when she was 17: She paid for it herself without insurance (but they sort of lucked out getting the money), it cost 350 dollars, she would never want more than one abortion. She doesn't care if its covered by the federal health bill, because then it might end up including cosmetic surgery.
:O

i dont care if it is covered or not.

the point to me is that the right is going to make a major issue of this, and get the kind of people who do care about it fired up. these are the smae people waving obama hitler signs at rallies and that sort of shit. any dem getting mixed up on this side of things will pay for it, because if there is one thing that gets women political is if there pussy is involved and they will push people out of office for it. mark my words, if there is a congressmen or senator in your area that has to run in 2010 there will be a brutal amount of ads about how he wanted to chain women to the proverbial stove. to feminists this is the equivalent of bringing back jim crowe laws would be to a black guy.

i am pretty much anti abortion BTW, i just dont feel i have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. it is between her and god.

That. That right there.

Although I think there should be some sort of time limit on it. Im not sure what it is now but if you wait to your 3rd trimester (Or something. Im only using the 3rd as an example.) then it should be to late. You had all that time to think about it and should have made that decision before then.

Meanwhile sneaky bitches put holes in your rubbers.

Just go get snipped dude. That will show them. ;)

I already did. Sneaky bitches.

:conspiracy

Seriously, I got a vasectomy for 10 bucks at Planned Parenthood. They were sick of me dragging the ladies in for abortions and offered it to me at a discount. Also the overlooked the fact that I was in my early 20s without kids.

Did they give you that fancy noninvasive one they do these days?

Yep, just a little Novocaine. You can't even see were the cut was, it was so small no stitches were needed. Just a bandaid. I asked when I could have sex again, he said to give him time to leave the room.

:lol

What do they do it with? I heard it was just some fancy needle like device.

Nah dude, they cut a tiny little slit at the bottom of the shaft just above the balls, use a little hook to pull the two sperm tube out the slit, (That part feels really fucking weird), then they cut them and tie them off, stuff it back in, slap a bandaid on.

:eek

Well, that's why I brought up that girl (but then she was a fairly intelligent woman and not an annoying feminist). Personally, I don't give a shit if federal health care covers it or not, and I'm not waving nazi obama signs. I think in exchange for national health care having to pay for your abortions is a pretty good exchange.

Nobody is telling a woman what they can or can't do with their body in this instance. Yea and also don't forget for as many women as there are that'll get pissed about being told what to do with their body, there's just as many conservative women waving nazi obama signs.

your're prolly right on that point kaljorn. i hope not though, i am rooting for my interpretation to win out. but that is the fun of the whole thing.

as for getting fixed:

i got it done when my wife got pregnant with our third child. i kind of regret it now that we are divorced, and may want another kid someday.

but not too long ago i had a girl tell me i got her pregnant. it made me laugh.

You might be right, we all know how bitchy women democrats can be.
:lol

At the same point, though, id think if democrats can get what they want just by sacrificing abortion, it would be easier ;/ Plus our current administration is supposed to be big on being bi-partisan, but its not like that has ever really mattered.

but then with what you were saying, what does it really matter if they can get what they want AND further alienate their opposition?

Mandatory abortions for everyone.

abortions for some, miniature american flags for others

I don't care about abortion one way or another. but it should be considered cosmetic.

I mean, why in the hell should the rest of the nation pay because they made a mistake?

They're saying if they go out get drunk, get boned by some random dude and get knocked up, that the government (tax paying citizens) should pay for it? By that logic; if I get drunk and throw a rock through someone's window, the government should pay for that too right?

saying this as someone who normally leans to the left; PAY FOR YOUR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY

Out of curiousity, do economists in your nation ever carry out cost/benefit analyses?

You will pay for it sooner or later. If you can prevent that an unwanted child is born, by a mother who can't or doesn't want to care for it properly, that will, statistically, save the community a lot of expenses later on.

I recommend reading or watching an economist talk about prevention research and the economical gains. It's the same with alcohol/drug prevention; sure, the program may seem expensive for the tax payers, but the alternative is ludicriously costly in comparison.

sorry, double posted

plus those little bastards won't be around to steal my car later on.

blasted child, you have to understand the nature of Americans. Most would cut their own nose off to spite their face.

they are not worried about babies growing up in bad situations or becoming criminals, or any other social problem later on cause it is THAT BABIES choice to grow up and not become a sucessfull member of society.

i had a conversation with a guy about health care today. he said that the government had no business taking care of people, or dictating policy to insurance companies.

i pointed out that 45,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance. more than cancer.

i also pointed out that we have fought two wars and given up a lot of individual freedoms because a few assholes killed 4,000 or so people eight years ago.

and it makes no sense to get mad about one and not the ohter.

his point was that the people who die from lack of insurance could do something about it if they didnt sit around and wait for the government to help them, while the people involved in 9/11 were innocent victims whom the government should have protected.

do you see the problem? do you see what the reasonable people of this country have to deal with?

I want to start the "fuck it" party. our slogan will be like, "world pissing you off? Fuck It!"

You mean the Liberal party?

i thought "not giving a shit about anything" was more of a libertarian trait

what was Perot's Party?

reform party

Capitalists? I don't really see the problem with what he said. Technically, he's right, it isn't the role if our government to take care of people, but it is the job of our government to protect us from foreign jerks.

So basically we should pay for their irresponsibility because it was save us from them being welfare recipients/criminals in the future.
1) Not all people getting abortions are poor/gonna be a weight on society.
2) All poor people are catholic/religious and their children are their welfare meal tickets.
3) There's already programs to make it free/cheap.
4) We'd save more money if we just shot them in the face.

There are seriously not enough bullets in the world.

I think we should shoot everybody, not just babies.

i think there's enough bullets in the world and I would be willing to place a bet on this!

the world population is only like 6-7 billion right?

plus with a well placed shotgun round you can kill or make bleed to death multiple persons.

Yeah, but most people require multiple bullets. Not to kill them, they just deserve it. Some people deserve a whole magazine.

well you can just stab them or something

I'm not sure I understand your tone of voice here, if this is really your opinions, or if you're being ironic.

Why isn't it your government's role to take care of people? Isn't that part of what governments do, take care of people who can't take care of themselves, using tax money?
Why is that wrong? Why wouldn't some of your tax money go to people who can't help themselves?

What does taking care of yourself have to do with abortions and healthcare? See that's what's retarded is that you can go from "Taking care of people" implying basic essentials to me food and water and maybe not dying but then all of a sudden that also means they need abortions.
and no, everybody is supposed to pay their own way one way or another. If some retarded cripple is born and never does anything and is always a burden on the state i dunno what to fucking think. Why should anybody pay for it? shouldn't it just be dead? The only reason we really take care of things like that and insane people that nobody wants is because its a danger to society.

I think the entire idea of social systems in the united states isn't that we owe some obligation to people to "Take care of them" and make sure they have food and water and healthcare and abortions but that you are just giving them a boost so that they will be able to take care of themselves in the future.
Many of the social systems require that you personally pay into it or are privately funded.

Even this new healthcare system isn't going to be "Free."

Well sorry for digressing, but I just quoted your post, where you were saying that it isn't your government's role to take care of people.

That's probably where we're different, but discussing this further seems a bit futile with comments like this

I guess this is the cynical kind of jargon that makes a guy popular at a place like i-mockery dot com, and I wonder if this is really your sentiment in real life - in which case I doubt you've ever worked with or dealt with or even remotely known a "retarded cripple" - but either way, I kind of get an idea of what the popular consensus is in America now

So can we stop with the funding of AIDS medicine for africa and just fund abortions there?

nevermind

A lot of the retards I know actually have jobs, so yea -- they pay their own way. or they have parents that take care of them. That's why I said, "Retarded cripple" because even retards can work jobs and do things unless they are really bad or have some further problem.
It's just hard to imagine somebody who's so fucked up that they will never be able to work or do anything useful in their entire life and they will always be a constraint on the government/tax payers.

And wouldn't the "cost/benefit" analysis for persons such as this say that it would be cheaper to just kill them?

You're the one who thinks that taking care of people means we should give everybody free abortions.

Do you think it was wrong to pull the plug on terry shiavo? (also I'm not very popular)

The whole point of our government and social justice isn't just taking care of people who can't take care of themselves, but to help alleviate social inequalities so that those who weren't born with an innate social advantage (i.e. being born white and rich) can have equal advantages and social mobiliity. The other reason we take care of people, like prisoners and insane persons, is to protect society from them.
Historically, the only role our government was supposed to play was as the Mediator. Basically, to protect people from each other and nature. There's nothing in the constitution that says that it is our job to take care of people who can't take care of themselves with our tax money.

are we talking about chris-chan here?
http://cogsdev.110mb.com/cwcki/index.php/Tugboat

i guess so. he lives with his parents and collects social security basically because of the work they did.

Are there plenty of people writing under your nickname, cause you seem to say different things a lot.

Also, you keep arguing that people who don't contribute to the community are better off dead. CAre to elaborate? Just how would they be killed?

I think that's the catch; people who don't manage in life don't quietly go and die in some corner, they typically survive (albeit barely) and end up causing a lot of trouble for everyone, and costing a lot of money. So even crassly economically speaking, a society which is generous in terms of benefits and fundings gets it back in the long run.

Where is it you are from sir?

Does this mean Hoover's stocks are going to increase? :confused:

Nope. Invest in Hefty.

Dimnos: Sweden. Feel free to vent any socialist-oriented prejudices now

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/...minaret_ban_11

I'm sure you guys are right behind them.

Socialist? You guys in Sweden are socialists? I thought you guys had a constitutional monarchy like the UK?

Most people here in the USA feel that if you are handicapped in some way that you cant provide for yourself then we have programs, such as Social Security and a few others, that will take care of you. However there are a lot of lazy ass fuckers that abuse the system just to be lazy and not have to work.

If you REALLY need/deserve aid then you are welcome to it. However if you are lazy and just want to leach off the system then you deserve to die.

Off Topic Question for the Swedish man: I got one of those propaganda emails from this very right wing ex military friend of mine. It was arguing against gun control in America. In it it claimed that in Sweden the government trained all citizens over the age of 18 how to properly care for and use a rifle and then gave them a rifle. As it was one of the propaganda emails I dismissed it as untrue but seeing as you are here I want to ask, is there any truth to that at all?

P.S. - Do you guys have Zhu Zhu Pets?

Tadao, that's Switzerland, not Sweden.

Dimnos, that's Switzerland, not Sweden.

:rolleyes

"Mosques and minaret construction projects in Sweden, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Germany and Slovenia have been met by protests."

I am right.

HOW FAR LEFT DO YOU LEAN, MY SWEDISH COMRADE?

Ok ok, sorry.
I can agree that Europe has seen a rise in islamophobia, including Sweden.

That doesn't mean that Sweden hasn't got a very strong official and political stance towards that kind of intolerance and racism. If you had googled some more about the Swiss referendum, you'd have found that Sweden, as the current "president" of the EU, has condemned the banning of minarets strongly.

What. you can generalize my country but I can't do the same to you?

WAY TO GO SWEDEN!

You can, I'm just saying how you're wrong

What? I thought you Swedes didnt get all judgmental?

Next pregnant Swede I see is gonna get a free abortion courtesy of me punching them in the stomach.

Dimnos, are you kidding? Swedes pass judgments all day long. We're the ones with the Nobel prizes and all that crap. I'm itching to assess you and maybe award you for something as we speak right now

Well I demand my award then. AND PRIZE MONEY DAMN IT!

Rocks or other hard/sharp objects which may be found in junkyards and also it could be done by the public for the public.

Well crassly economically speaking, if we just killed those persons we'd save even more money.
Let me ask you about this: What about the people who don't manage their life but are capable of doing so? In other words, people who are completely capable of solving their own problems but instead choose to be a drain on everybody else? Shouldn't they have as much encouragement to uh solve their own problems in life much as possible so that at least THEY won't be sucking down the government cheese?
If we continue to provide people with everything they need and very little encouragement to improve themselves, then these persons who have little motivation already be self-sufficient will have even less of a motivation and may never stop relying on the government. Thus, crassly economically speaking, in the long run it may be more beneficial to not solve everyone's problems for them because it may discourage persons from becoming self-sufficient, creating more of a debt than otherwise.
Plus what encouragement will people have to work in general, not just those with little motivation -- especially considering that some persons can have a higher or equal quality of life by not working ;/

what value does this place on abortion, and what value will it gain in society if it is basically available free to anybody who "needs"/wants it.

exactly.

Who threw that rock!!?

Kahljorn, yes I absolutely agree that that's the crux of the matter. With "generous" I don't really mean make everybody rich even if they do nothing; I mean don't assume that everyone is a lazy moocher when in fact they may want to work but can't, due to a number of illnesses or whatever. I think when the general attitude towards recipients of benefits is that they probably don't deserve them is when the climate of a society is taking a turn for the worse. This is probably more a matter of philosophy rather than practice.

I've never been in a situation where I haven't worked (I'm a teacher by the way) and I'm very confident that even in the direst of times I'd probably find something gainful to do with my time, as long as I'm healthy. But I know of people who really can't work, but who'd love to if they could, and who are in the process of being able to work thanks to rather extensive programmes which are probably costly in the eyes of a tax payer. One thing I do know is that they would give up the prospect of working if the government accused them of cheating and instead left them to their own devices.

I'm very interested in these questions and would love to hear more suggestions, as long as they steer clear from stoning, at least for a little while

Kahl doesn't actually believe that killing is ever the right thing to do by the way; he just wants you to formulate an argument against it.

Oh thank you for enlightening me, minion of Kahl, I shall return to my drawing board and formulate such an argument, which I will give to you so that you can show it to him. Please tell his highness that he might have to wait a while - arguments against stoning sick people to death don't exactly formulate themselves.

Zhukov please forward blasted child's last two responses to my private message folder thank you.

Hey, I was just letting you know. Plus, I don't see why it's all of a sudden not worthy of discussion; if you are passionate enough about it and someone wants to know what you think, then I would say that's a perfectly good reason to debate.

For the first part, I'm sure a percentage of the persons who are receiving benefits are capable of working or providing for themselves but receive benefits instead. My point is that this percentage of persons could increase if things i mentioned earlier happened.
For the second part, why would you think that?

Abortion is wrong and should be considered murder. A woman should get life in prison for killing a fucking baby.

Well, what about men? I know that a lot of doctors are women these days but I imagine most of the people performing the operation would be men.

Men are safe

A Swedish man who claimed to be wheelchair bound has been asked to repay millions of kronor in social insurance benefits after authorities obtained a picture of a him dancing with a life-sized rabbit.

The 33-year-old man from Halmstad in western Sweden had claimed for years that he was bound to a wheelchair and as a result qualified for public assistance in the form of payments made to “people in his immediate environment” who helped him with daily tasks.

While the doctor who originally examined the man didn't find any reason as to why the man couldn't walk, the doctor nevertheless accepted the man's claims.

Between November 1st, 2005 and January 31st, 2009, the Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan) paid the man a total of 3,001,741 kronor ($400,000) in benefits.

:lol

Ant, if that is aimed at me, which I guess it is considering you took the time to google up something Sweden-related, is it meant to prove anything? That the Swedish social insurance agency can make mistakes? That it's not perfect?
You could have asked me; I'm well aware of its shortcomings.

Since you're playing the copy and paste game, here's from wikipedia:

I thought your argument was not to assume that people abuse the social benefit system.

I don't really see the problem in not assuming something as stupidly generalised as "everyone abuses the system".

Isn't, "Everyone does not abuse the welfare system" just as stupidly generalized?

Obviously, I know that there exist people who abuse the system, I'm a not a complete idiot.
I meant that the attitude towards an individual benefit seeker shouldn't be that he's a potential con artist.
At the moment in Sweden there is a growing tendency to disbelieve just about everyone who is on a long term sick leave, and our government is about to cancel proper support for tens of thousands of seriously ill people.

I think we're moving in the wrong direction.

Also, I think the numbers relating to these insurance scams are a bit misguiding. How big a problem is this really? How big an amount of money is this compared to corruption, bonus-systems, corporate crime etc etc. How dangerous is it to our society that some people abuse the system, compared to letting poor people suffer because they can't afford the health care?
Has a nation ever fallen due to sheer lack of work force, due to labourers pretending to be sick when they aren't?
I think we're blowing this out of proportions.

Ever heard the term "A few bad apples spoils the bunch"?

He's Swedish, Dimnos.

You have to put it in Death Metal terms nowadays.

They dont have apples in Sweden?

Nope, it's too cold. They just shrivel up like a Swede's scrotum.

The Leader, It must be dear memory to you, the day you got to examine a Swede's scrotum

:lol

So it was good for you too, BC?:lol

Hey. Do you guys in Sweden shove frozen piss through mail slots like they do in Finland?