Opposition expected to stiffen against ban on subsidized Viagra

Let's give the opposition the shaft (0.00 / 0)

and neuter their Stupakulations about abortion rights by taking viagra and cialis out of federally funded or subsidized health care plans.

Though I bet another round of tea bagging will stimulate their desire to get a rise out of their constituents by foaming at the mouth and bending over to do their corporatist's bidding.

---

by: JC @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 20:17:04 PM UTC

Can we at least agree (0.00 / 0)

on having Extenze for Her  and some ruby red lipstick covered?

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:03:34 PM UTC

It's funny to me, in a painful kind of way. (0.00 / 0)

The same people who will scream at the very top of their lungs about "Government mandated health care" seem willing in the extreme to have the government mandate sexual health care.  That fundamental hypocrisy alone should cost every Democrat (and Republican) who voted for the Stupak amendment his or her job.

Also because of that, I think the early framing of the backlash against the Stupid amendment has been slightly off point.  As it stands, this is just tit-for-tat.  "Take my abortions, and I'll take your boner pills."  What it is, deeply and truly is the start of a rather horrid slippery slope, and thus that argument truly applies here.  If the mob can ban procedure X, what is to stop the mob from banning procedure Y, or Z,?  Cancer treatment?  How'd you live?  Snowboarding injury?  Too bad, set the bone yourself.  This is the very thing that libertarian leaners and many independents fear, and that should be what is focused on most clearly and harshly.  It could be a back door to undercutting Republican lies about what the bill really does mandate.

That last is a double edged sword, though.  The House bill, just as Republicans have been lying about up til now, really does mandate what health care the government will let you receive, all thanks to Stupak and it's stupid supporters.  They proved their own lie.  If this isn't irony, I don't know what is.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:17:17 PM UTC

I believe Politifact (0.00 / 0)

would rate most of what you wrote as FALSE.  See:  http://politifact.com/truth-o-...

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:26:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

~facepalm~ (0.00 / 0)

Craig, no they didn't.  Mandating that the government 'public option' cannot be used to fund abortion is exactly what I said it was ... the government mandating what health coverage you can have and what you can't.  So, I can easily and verifiable rate what you just wrote as "false".

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 22:58:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The error in your statement (0.00 / 0)

is the lack of context, focus, scope and definition.  Politifact has it:  http://www.politifact.com/trut...

==================
On one issue right off the bat, we believe Lowey is misleading. The Stupak amendment -- which now accounts for about four pages of the nearly 2,000-page bill -- does not address the entire "private health insurance market." Rather, it addresses how abortion coverage would be handled within the health insurance "exchanges" included in the Democratic-sponsored House health care bill. These exchanges would provide a virtual marketplace for health insurance for those who do not already have coverage through their employer or through a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid.

The exchange is designed for people who are self-employed or work for very small businesses -- but it would serve at most a small fraction of Americans, since most people get their insurance either through their employer, a spouse's employer or through existing government programs. So, by not specifying that she's talking about how abortion coverage would be handled in the exchange, Lowey immediately makes the issue seem to affect many more people than it actually does.
=============

"Small fraction" is important to not overlook.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:14:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Craig... (0.00 / 0)

...you somehow forgot to mention that even Baucus has plans to eventually fold all insurance policyholders into the exchange's regulation...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 00:12:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Show me the bill (0.00 / 0)

;)

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 00:19:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Craig, don't be obtuse. (0.00 / 0)

You quote things I have never written as if that quote points to the error in my logic.  It does not.  Kindly show me, without attributing to me the errors of others, what I have written that is in error.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:20:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, (0.00 / 0)

you fail to establish context, focus, scope and definition -- length, width, and breadth (like Lowery failed to do) to your complaint against Stupak. Just my opinion.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:25:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Weak Sauce, Craig (0.00 / 0)

The context, focus, scope and definition is provided by the Stupak amendment itself.  You have read it, right?  Did I misstate it?  No, I didn't.  The Government is prohibited from providing for some form of health care, call it procedure X if you wish.  Do you disagree?

Does that or does it not mean that the government is mandating what health care that some insurance can provide for people.  Yes, it obviously does.  Is that or is that not what Bachmann, Palin, Boehner  and their toadies have been screaming?  Yes, it certainly is.  Is that or is it not the very slippery slope I pointed to?  Yes it is.  Has all of this been established? Yes.  You telling me what I didn't establish isn't an opinion.  It is a claim, a claim you won't back up because you can't.

Craig, I thought you and I had gotten beyond the stupid arguments of the obvious.  Apparently I was wrong.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:51:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Without context and scope (0.00 / 0)

I find your argument rather obtuse and misleading. As Politifact states:  "The exchange is designed for people who are self-employed or work for very small businesses -- but it would serve at most a small fraction of Americans, since most people get their insurance either through their employer, a spouse's employer or through existing government programs."

It appears that this "small fraction" combined with the opportunity to buy the coverage with non-federal dollars was essentially sleeves off the vest for many Dem representatives to get the House bill through. Politics by the numbers.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:00:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here is the amendment (0.00 / 0)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/p...

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:08:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good, you have read it. (0.00 / 0)

So perhaps you can point out to me exactly where in the amendment it says that it is acceptable for the government to mandate denial of care (inserting itself between a patient and their doctor) as long as it only happens to an acceptably small number of people.  Your argument of scope fails because the principle is universal.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 18:08:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are spinning (0.00 / 0)

There is no denial of care wording in Stupak.   If fact Stupak points the way for access to care without federal funding.

As to the numbers see figure 7 on p.21 of the Census report:  http://www.census.gov/prod/200...

The number of uninsured is about 15%.  Consider women are half the population, so they are at 7.5%.  Now consider the majority of Americans oppose unrestricted abortion.  For argument's sake half of the last number is 3.75%. That's why the amendment passed.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 18:58:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

correction (0.00 / 0)

I meant "In fact..."

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 18:59:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As they laughingly say at a website I frequent (0.00 / 0)

Learn to logic, Craig.

Craig:

There is no denial of care wording in Stupak.

The Stupid Amendment.

(

a) IN GENERAL.-No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to Cover any part of the costs· of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,

BUT, if people want to pay for insurance that will cover an abortion, well they certainly can.  So, yes, you can get the care; you just have to find a way to pay for it.

Is that or is that not a denial of coverage to those who can't (or won't) afford insurance?  It is.  Isn't the whole point of health care reform to cover these people?  It is.  This amendment says, in very plane English, we will pay for those who can't afford health care, as long as we (the government) get to decide what is payed for.  Sorry, Craig.  My point stands.  It is the government taking the ever frightening step of standing between a physician and a patient.  That is exactly what I argued, and exactly what health care antagonists are being supremely hypocritical about.

The rest of your blather is the same thing I've already argued down.  Scale doesn't matter if one is arguing principle.  Either you support the principle, or you support popular application of it when it is convenient.  The amendment didn't pass because it would only affect 5 million Americans (your math, with another half taken out due to age concerns.)  I seriously doubt anyone said that violating principle is okay if it only affects 5 mil.  Oh wait, that's exactly what they did.  It passed because of political hypocrisy.  Your scale argument has already failed.  You might as well drop it.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 19:34:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Politicians always make choices (0.00 / 0)

based on numbers.  They are called votes.  Wulfgar, where have I passed judgment here on the underlying issue or on those for or against on this topic????  Politics is all about the numbers and living with sausage hypocrisy in a diverse society.  I thought you understood that and were a realist.

As an aside, what does Stupak add that Hyde didn't already prohibit other than a "hell no" exclamation point. So we have 3.75% x 0=0 and an exclamation point. Again, sleeves off the vest to get the bill.  

IF there is anything apparently hypocritical it is how you attack Stupak and stay silent on Hyde. Perhaps you are a politician of sorts after all to reconcile that contradiction.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 21:00:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hah (0.00 / 0)

You obviously didn't read the link I posted below just before you posted this.

And I truly have to ask why you support politicians chasing numbers when a principle is on the line.  You only seem to do that when the policy in question favors your particular view.

Saying nothing is not, nor has ever been, hypocrisy. Claiming opposition to something you voted in favor of is. You do understand the word, don't you?  Apparently not.  Hypocrisy.

Here's a suggestion, Craig.  You'd best not accuse me of something you don't understand based solely on your ignorance of the situation.  That will not lead to happy results.  As such, you apply a weak Ad Hominem.  Epic fail.

You, sir, are a sophist, and not a terribly good one.  You are strongest when sticking to the truth.  Perhaps you'd best have done that here.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 21:18:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your complaining and personal (0.00 / 0)

attacks remind me of this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Your party has sharp teeth even though they gum the issues.

I didn't support said politicians. Only took recognition of how and why they did what they did.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 21:25:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupak is a monster (0.00 / 0)

He really is.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 20:53:53 PM UTC

That's sad, Criag (0.00 / 0)

You claim that I use complaint and personal slight when I've done nothing of the sort.  You, on the other hand, seek to undercut my reasoned arguments by accusing me of doing so.  That would be a classic Ad Hominem, Craig.  'Don't trust this guy's arguments because he had the temerity to show how wrong I am'.  Epic Fail.

It is you who have been leveling complaints against what is obvious. The very people who falsely claim that health reform will insert the government between a person and their doctor are the people who voted to make that a reality.  You haven't shown anything that makes my claim invalid.  Not one thing.  Nothing.  Notta.  So the only retort you're left with is that it's about my "party".  No, Craig.  It is about hypocrisy, just as I've written since my very first comment, which you complained about with no substance.

Explaining why politicians engage in hypocrisy is not what I accused you of.  You support them by trying to convince me that I'm wrong when I point out that political expediency is no substitute for a principled stand.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 21:47:16 PM UTC

You are too stupid to realize that almost all you do is personal attack, Wulfgar. Almost always and (1.00 / 1)

almost everywhere. That others realize it is normal. That you don't realize it is apparently normal, for you.

The House passed a bill which violates Obama's prime directive and your favorite; That everyone can keep the insurance  they  currently have, if they like what they currently have.

It violates that principle in 2 ways.

1. Women who currently have insurance that covers comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion,  are likely to see that change.

And

2. The bill sunsets SCHIP in 3 years so children (and their parents) who like their current insurance will have no choice about being kicked off and turned over to the private insurance companies to be used to make a profit off of.

The Democratically controlled house passed this crappy bill on the backs of women and children.

The Democrats have become Republicans, and the Republicans have become LUNITICS!

---

by: Steve W. @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 22:29:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, Steve (0.00 / 0)

I'm smart enough to realize that fragile little kittens such as yourself always see a "personal attack" when their pet illusion gets tromped on.

Hush now.  Adults are talking here.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 22:35:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay are you serious? (0.00 / 0)

ED is NOT a medical condition??? Please....this should be covered.  And Digby uses some pretty ridiculous arguments..

"I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get"

Is he serious?  How about diabetes? How about having your heart fixed? Heck, clearly God wanted that heart to fall apart...so no stents for you!

---

by: bigsage @ Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 23:30:08 PM UTC

Too Funny (0.00 / 0)

I have always suspected that the liberals here need lots of VIAGRA - LOL

If insurance starts covering it's use, all you guys will probably start walking around like BOB on the commercials, with a BIG NEW smile !

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 17:28:49 PM UTC

I thought Bob Dole is a Republican, Eric. Wasn't he the spokesperson? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Steve W. @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 19:37:27 PM UTC