Abortion Deal Breaker

Some pundits are already saying that the ONLY reason the Health Care Bill squeaked through the House on Saturday was because there was language that prevented abortion in the piece of paper.

Well, that's not the only reason it passed. There were a lot of dollars, Nancy's Pride, and a toilet plunger working in unison to make it happen, but I'd rather not dredge in that crap any longer.

What I noticed this morning in the New York Times Editorial was this:

The Ban on Abortion Coverage
The House health care reform bill passed with a steep price. The Senate should work to preserve a woman’s right to abortion services.

See, now this is why the "Left" doesn't get it. The headline alone is misleading. The second sentence is a slippery slope argument. The reality of it is, I don't want to pay for your abortion. I don't want to pay for your angioplasty either, fatass, but that's Social medicine for you. But for some folks believe that terminating a baby in the womb is murder - if you do it with State or Federal dollars - that's State sanctioned murder. In other words, that person who believes it is murder objects to paying to kill a baby. For some reason they don't like that. (We'll discount the irony of these same people not fussing about funding of the Military and prisoner executions with their tax dollars for the sake of this discussion, because it's been my experience that these same people dismiss this discussion as well.)

But back to the editorial:

Under pressure from anti-abortion Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawmakers added language that would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions — even if they use their own money.

The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman’s right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

What? You sound kind of Libertarian right there... you're actually agreeing with me? Except, I think that of this entire discussion - not limited to just the abortion debate. Let's go on.

The anti-abortion Democrats behind this coup insisted that they were simply adhering to the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs. In fact, they reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholder’s own dollars to pay for abortion coverage.

So, you can't buy insurance to pay for your abortion, but you could pay out of pocket for the entire procedure? Or, you could [in insurance speak], buy a rider to supplement your coverage. Yeah, now see - it's kind of funny how the paper FINALLY sees my argument for why we shouldn't have Federal Health (Insurance) Reform in the first place!

Is it not just a tad hypocritical that many of the same Representatives who voted for this amendment have objected to health care reform on the grounds that it "puts legislators between patients and their doctors!?"

Sigh

But I'm under the newer impression - that it's how we pay for medical services should be reformed. Single payers -- meaning you and I and everyone else is the consumer and we pay as if we were at the grocery store. Why would you expect your car insurance to pay for your tune up or oil change? You pay for those in addition to the insurance that pays for catastrophic damage.

As I understand the abortion clause in the bill that passed the house, isn't that all they're asking the women (and men) who decide, nay, Chose, to have an abortion procedure? No one is stopping you from having all the abortions you want. Go nuts. Just Not On My Dime - is all that has been said.

How Libertarian...

I told you no one would be happy. The Democrat base was thrown under the bus by Pelosi just to 'get 'er done' and the Republicans - well, all but one - are completely out of it.

Sunday Comics

Confused in Afghanistan

President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

Well. How about a fuggin' parade for the troops then, Mr. President?

Or, hold on, are these the same assholes who said Iran wouldn't ever get the bomb?

We're going to have to decide what our priorities are in there - are we going to try to Nation build, or are we looking to put some McDonald's restaurants in there? They've already figured out ballot fraud, but what's the end game. If you're to trust this group of suits who have the President's ear, George already mopped them up.

But being the bipolar child that America is - Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, has argued that success demands a substantial expansion of the American presence, up to 40,000 more troops.

Meanwhile Biden has been mouthing off that more troops in Afghanistan is silly and wants to concentrate of Pakistan. But Hillary and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have both warned that the Taliban remain linked to Al Qaeda and would give their fighters havens again if the Taliban regained control of all or large parts of Afghanistan, making it a mistake to think of them as separate problems.

I'm confused. Mission Accomplished, or we'll lose the war? Which is it?

Wanna bet that Obama's hair turns white in before the end of his first term?

Sunday Comics

Fat and Free

In the ongoing commentary of America, the Fat and the Free...

Episode 592, exhibit Y.

Why Are You for X, When You Like Y?

Someone asked me yesterday, Hey Cap, why is it you trust the US Government to run the Military and control the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth, why don't you trust it to manage a health care option?

First off, that's not what we're going to get. Second and more importantly, let me answer your ridiculous question. The question is a fallacy argument called a Bad Analogy - which is to compare two things are similar, but in fact, are not.

Article 2 Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

The civilian run military is the primary function of the Executive Branch of the US Constitution. IE it is the Federal Government's Job to run the military. Prior to the first Great Depression, the military and the post office were the only interactions most citizens had with the Federal Government.

Could you please point me where in the Constitution it is written that it is the job of the Federal government to provide We the People with Universal Healthcare?

Besides, the job of the military is to kill. The oath of the soldier and the President are to uphold the Constitution.

The job of the medical practitioner is to heal. The oath is to do no harm.

I'm Just A Bill - Updated

Too too true. If you can't read it, click on it - it'll embiggen for you there.