http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7269697Oh my.
The green commode primitive:
WCGreen (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 03:10 AM
Original message
I don't understand what Nelson wants....
The Hyde Amendment specifically prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion. what more does this guy want? Is he pulling a Lieberman and demanding so much that he can never be satisfied?
Well, from what I understand, the pro-lifers are saying that if a federal subsidy is used by a low income woman then they should not be able to use their health insurance for an abortion. They, these hard liners, believe that a separation of subsidy from a persons own contribution is virtually impossible so they do not want anyone receiving a federal subsidy to be able to use THEIR insurance for an abortion.
Here is a way to solve that problem that is less draconian but still abhorrent to people like me who support a woman right to choose.
If you are say assisted by the federal government when you purchase your health insurance, your kick in would he the percentage of the premium you pay. Say your total premium in $1000 and you pay $400, then your insurance policy would cover only 40% of the cost for the procedure.
To make this fair, if there is such a way when talking about this part of the process, then since I don't support the war, I should get my taxes cut by the percentage of the budget that is designated for funding the war...
Why should my money be used in a way that I find abhorrent to my personal beliefs? After all, if the so-called pro-lifers insist federal money not be used in anyway that would upset their "moral code", then why can't I?
Come on Ben, what's good for a so-called christian, why isn't it okay for a pacifist to demand not to have their money pay for war?
grantcart (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. They have an agreement in place Ben wants time on TV
The agreement will require the companies to sequester money they receive so that the money never comingles.
It is an entirely stupid anti intellectual approach but it will allow everyone to say that federal money isn't going to abortions.
lapfog_1 (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I keep having this thought...
If abortion worries them so much, let's just let them take it out completely (no insurance company will provide money for abortions).
And then we set up a fund (donations accepted from anyone, so it's not insurance).
There are about 850,000 abortions performed in the US (and that number is decreasing again). The average cost is $300 per procedure (with some costing much more, and routine procedures costing a little less).
850,000 X $300 = $255 M. That's the total.
If we get 5 million people to commit to $5 a month to fund abortions for anyone that wants one, we're done.
$5 a month.
Set up a website and a bank account and some bookkeepers with oversight by NARAL.
It won't be abused because no one, ever, wants to have an abortion, even if it's free. Women and men will not just throw caution to the winds with the idea that should the woman get pregnant, well the abortion is free, so do without that pesky birth control stuff.
Simple, easy to do, and they can pass whatever language they want in this crappy bill (or any future bill).
laughingliberal (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. That always irritates me about the anti-choicers. They don't want THEIR tax dollars going for abortions. As if their tax dollars are, somehow, more sacred than the tax dollars of those of us who disagreed with almost everything * spent our money on.
WCGreen (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Just the same, I don't think my money should be used to pick up the slack from all the tax-deductible money they donate to their "church"...
napi21 (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. The hard liners are standing up a straw man! There is also a law that prohibits Fed. funds from being used to prosthelitize, and the churches "keep the Fed Funds separate" for use to feed the hungry, & clothe & house the poor. If the churches can do it to these folks satisfaction, why can't the ins. co's? It's BS!
Cleita (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. He wants to be king for a day and upstage Lieberman.
Nothing else makes sense unless he's just a sociopath that needs to be unelected the next time his turn is up.
I don't think Ben Nelson's ever going to be unelected.
old mark (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
10. Nelson is the front man for the catholic bishops. They want to end abortion completely, want to punish anyone who has too little money to pay for abortion privately, and want to stop people from having any sex outside of marriage, and any sex even in a marriage that does not enable fertilization and pregnancy. They want to use their cash and political clout to make this apply to everyone in the US.
That has been the catholic policy and will not change or "progress".
Any idea of a modern catholic church is just talk or wishful thinking.
For the record, the senior Senator from Nebraska is not of that denomination.
tservo (61 posts) Sat Dec-19-09 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
11. He wants a pony.
The Nebraska primitive who lives in franksolich's birthplace:
TicketyBoo (959 posts) Sat Dec-19-09 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
12. I'm afraid that good ol' Ben is as liberal as we get out here in the cornfields.
Sorry, folks
Ha ha.
Bitwit1234 (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
14. The media went crazy over Liberman I suppose he is jealous and he now wants to be the center of attention.
KharmaTrain (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
15. If He's So Pissed...
...he's a Senator...he can propose legislation, even put together a Constitutional ammendment to see if this country and his "collegues" feel the same way he does.
He's out there for attention. No doubt the same bishops who pushed Stupak through the House are giving the Benenator all sorts of "advice" on this one. It's also a smokescreen as for whom Benjie is really working for...Mutual of Omaha and other insurance companies. This is the thin thread they're holding onto now to have this bill killed and they're more than happy to disguise their real tactics behind a cross.
Hubert Flottz (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
16. He wants to be a republican...
And he is one...
franksolich assures the above primitive that Ben Nelson is a hard-core Democrat.
Her Stoutness the silly primitive:
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-19-09 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
17. Ben is a member of the tag-team .. Ben, Max, Mary, Blanche & their ringleader Jowly-Joe.
They're just taking turns, throwing sand in the gears.
