Good luck with this one King Nothing. I'm just waiting for his response.

 

No matter what opinion polls you take, there will always be inaccurate figures. The reason for this, is due to sampling error. And as I have stated multiple times, sampling error arise for the following reasons.

1. Non-response Bias
2. Response Bias
3. Wording of Questions
4. Coverage Bias

These 4 factors are reasons why opinion polls usually are inaccurate.

And you talk about validity. Validity of a poll does not necessarily provide reliability. And if you cannot have reliability, then how can you trust the conclusions?

And by reliability, it means that a poll would have to come up with consistent scores or observations of a given subject. In other words, if something contains reliability, the same conclusions can be repeated, no matter how many times the same poll is given.

So ask yourself, if any of those polls were to be given 3 more times. Would the conclusions be the same?

 

What the hell is your problem? First of all, that's what someone sarcastically said to me. Btw, I did not ignore the fact that Universal Healthcare is nothing like the bill because Universal Healthcare covers everyone while the bill is actually lead to a single payer. That's what you like to see happen anyways so don't even bother me with your stupid response!

 

The Peruvian's not crazy. He's willing to admit when he's incorrect.

 

Wow I'm impressed. You're much smarter than Schultz.

 

You know what those numbers remind me of?

President Bush's approval rating in October 2001 and March 2002. Sure, it went down a little by March 2002, but could anyone really perceive that publicly at the time? Even those of us who weren't giddy about murdering Afghans kept our mouth shut (wrongly, as history turns out...)

Plus, you have two different polls with two different methodologies. Even if they asked identical questions, they'll still jam their numbers differently. And, almost every poll carries a 3.5% margin of error - so that 10% difference may actually be a 3% or a 17% difference. Also, wasn't Canada going through Parliamentary elections during that time difference? So - the public was polled after watching Conservatives bash their respective provincial health services for two months and the number ONLY dropped 10% from Near-Unanimity approval to Almost Near-Unanimity approval?

 

Appreciate it: I kinda do this for a living. I figured I owed this discussion something intelligent after I vowed to swallow their souls for the anti-Christ. :excited:

 

This ought to straighten everything right out. The latest USA/Today poll shows 49% now favor the health care reforms with only 40% opposed.

http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201003230037

 

The linkthru is even better:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Includes most important changes: 4%
Needs more; Good first step: 48%
Wrong changes: 31%
System's fine: 8%
No opinion: 10%

Gosh, after all of the nonsense, it sure does look like a strong plurality still wants either a Public Option or Single-Payer, if I may infer!

 

....just the beginning of more mindless bitching and complaining for selfish political purposes...heaven forbid anyone should do something to improve the country and the living standards and lives of its people.

 

Maybe you misread the title of the Section. The title of the section is "Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package". Now if abortion is prohibited as part of the minimum benefits package, that means it will be allowed as part of other packages. I gave you too much credit to actually read the whole bill, let me introduce to you how it is going to work for real.

Now do you see how the plan acts now? The essential benefits package is the same as the minimum benefits package. The you have other levels of plans that a person can get. If you read number 2, people can still be covered for abortion. Because as you can see it says "not required (or prohibited)", that means that abortion can be funded. Now if you read number 3, it states that people can still be covered for abortion. Because it says "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A). And paragraph (4)(A) talks about abortion. It is right there in black and white.

These are paragraphs (4)(A) and (4)(B) which are referred by above. And as you see paragraph (4)(A) describes what is prohibited by public funding in relation to abortion, while (4)(B) describes what is allowed by public funding in relation to abortion. I do not understand how you can not comprehend that is states that abortion will be funded using public funding. It states it right there. And what can be funded is depending on the law that is in effect 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved. In other words, the plan year is 2012. That means that depending on law from July 2011, anything that is allowable to be funded by public funding, is allowable. It is right there in black and white.

No, you are not getting the ball here. You have three different levels in section 258. You have the state laws, the federal laws, and the federal civil rights laws. Now on the state law aspect of it, there will be no change to the requirement or prohibition of coverage for abortion, funding on abortion, or procedural requirements when it comes to abortions. Now for the federal level aspect of it, most important aspect being (C), which speak about the discrimination of willingness or refusal to provide abortion, ability to pay for abortion, cover abortion, refer someone to get abortion, or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion. Again, it is right there in black and white.

Block 4 as you call it is stating that there cannot be discrimination by a federal agency or program who is being funded by federal assistance under this act or any amendment to this act, to an individual or health care institution because a health care provider does not provide abortion, pay for abortion, provide coverage of abortion, or refers for abortions. So it does not matter what your health insurance does in terms of abortion, a woman can still get an abortion. Its there in black and white.

Block 5 as you call it is the same thing as block 4, just in smaller words. If a woman's health care plan does is willing or not willing to to provide abortions, pay for abortions, provide coverage of abortions, or refer to abortions can still get an abortion. Its there in black and white.

Block 2 and Block 3 is actually Section 222(e), this is Section 222(d).

So show me where there is a (4)(A) there, you will not, because there is none. As for the money shot, it evidently is being shot with a blank bullet, because the description that is being mentioned does not exist.

I am reading the legislation as it appears. Just read it, and it explains to you how abortion is being funded. As for the whole explanation of how they are actually referring to Section 202(e) and not Section 202(d), that makes no sense. I have read plenty of legislation refuting points in other discussions, and I have never seen a mistake like this ever made. Now, if you would be so kind to show that Section 202(e) is actually an amendment from Section (d), then feel free to prove that. Because without proof, it is just talk.

This is stating that there is a limitation on the funds that the IHS uses for the performance of abortions. But that the funds can still be used for the performance of abortions as long as there are appropriations to pay for the abortions.


Now, you keep mentioning the Hyde Amendment. Are you aware that Obama did not approve the Hyde Amendment? He has been against it since he was running for President.

But here is the kicker, the Hyde Amendment is not mentioned once in this bill. If you want to find it go ahead, but you will not find it. I guarantee you this. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment is not mentioned once in this bill either. If you want to find it go ahead, but you will not find it either.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment is the one that Obama approved.

 

lets just wait and see what happens.

 

I already know what will happen. Because it's happened before. Over and over and over again.

The legislation will cause health insurance costs to go up. Then the democrats will say, "Our system isn't working. We need more legislation." Then they'll pass more legislation.

Repeat ad nauseum.

I take that back. We're already way past nauseum. I'm nauseous just thinking about it. (And now it will cost me 3 times as much if I want to do something about my nausea)

 

Really? Was that necessary?

First off, section titles don't mean much. They're headers. It's kinda like the Preamble to the Constitution - sounds great, it's not litigated.

Okay. "Abortion is prohibited from the minimums" does not equal "Abortion is included in the maximums." It's absurdly illogical - it's like trying to prove a negative. If a section of the bill allowed it in the maximums, there would be a section with a header entitled something like "Abortion is included in the maximums."

You're absolutely correct. 4A and 4B defer to whatever the federal law is in the future. Yes, in a future world where abortion funding was allowed by OTHER federal law (ie: the Hyde Amendment). Present law only allows abortion funding in the case of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Hyde Amendment is renewed every year during the budget process and has been since 1976. There is no political will presently to fail to renew that law.

If a hypothetical future Congress has the political will to not renew the Hyde Amendment, then they will also have the political will to amend this law - even if this law was written now to explicitly prohibit abortion funding. Law hasn't been "written in stone" since Moses.

As we discovered above, this block you pulled out of the bill defers to existing law, State's first. If a fantasy future Congress decides to allow abortion funding during the appropriations process, then yes, you're absolutely correct; federal funds will pay for abortion. They do not now - and most likely - they won't in our lifetimes.

States, however, can still prohibit or regulate public abortion funding according to this section. So, in your fantasy future with your hypothetical Congress - Texas could still prohibit public funding for abortion and no one who participates in your state pool would be allowed to use public funds for abortion and this federal law would defer to Texas.

It's called Roe v Wade. A woman's reproductive rights are constitutionally protected. Yes, a woman can still get an abortion. A "woman being allowed to get an abortion" (just like at the top) DOES NOT EQUATE to "public funds will be used for that abortion".

And, technically, it's red, white and blue (how patriotic of you!)

It appears your internet forum-based legislative training has failed you.

Here's the Manager's Amendment:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_dingell.pdf

Here's an excerpt from the Manager's Amendment:

Page 97, line 19, strike "222(d)(4)(A) " and insert "222(e) (4)(A)".

Saavy? Or do I need to explain to you what a Manager's Amendment is?

Correct. But the Hyde Amendment prohibits IHS appropriations for abortions.

Who gives a shit what the President's opinion is on the Hyde Amendment? He's not a Senator, anymore - he doesn't get to vote on it. He doesn't have a line-item veto.

Sure, in our fantasy world, President Obama could veto the HHS Appropriations Act and tell Congress to send it back to him without the Hyde Amendment. THERE AREN'T ENOUGH VOTES TO APPROVE AN HHS APPROPRIATIONS BILL WITHOUT THE HYDE AMENDMENT. THERE NEVER WILL BE.

And, in our fantasy world, post-veto there would be no appropriations for HHS. There would be no public funding for ANY INSURANCE - much less abortion.

 

Gap in health care law's protection for children

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0

 

Can someone explain to me about this percieved *Freedom* all Americans think they have...

Why do you guys call it Freedom to fork out thousands of dollars to insurance companies for your health protection?. Why do most of you believe that those companies are working for you?. They are business companies that put their profit ahead of your interests, and from what I can see they aren't backward in coming forward in raising your yearly rates.

Why is it expected that your government has to protect your Freedom from terrorists but it's a no no to protect everyone's health?.

Americans boast that they give more to overseas aid than any other country but until yesterday they denied aid to millions of their own citizens.......what happened to that well worn US saying..."No man left behind".

 

LOL. She could afford it, at least right now. OK. I find all of this pretty boring and petty... all this talk about losing your freedom because of the passage of health care, losing your wealth, companies losing money and can't hire employess... bullshit.

To have access to health care is a right not a previllege based upon what your can afford to pay. I don't care about how much money you make, great and good for you. What I do mind is your superiority that because you make lots of money, then the rest of us can go fuck ourselves. Don't try to sell me a bill of goods that this will cost business too much money... they pass all cost onto the consumer anyway so it won't cost them anything and they will still reap disgusting heaps of profits.

Go ahead and take your Republican gloves off. Your thinking that because your group didn't win the election, didn't win the healthcare fight is unfair, undemocratic is just utter nonsense. It is the Republicans that are bigoted, racist and undemocratic. If you think that the rest of us are just going to sit by and let you take the White House back, then you are just as disillusioned as your thinking that the American people don't want healthcare.

Bring it on.

 

Mmmmm... thanks for the morning wood.

 

Under the header "Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package", again you have three types of plans explained. You have the minimum or essential benefits package, you have the voluntary choice of having a qualified health benefits plan, and you also have a public health insurance option.

So anyone who wants a benefits package from the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE), the Commissioner of the HIE does not have to require abortion on the health care plan. And anyone who wants the essential benefits package, cannot be recommended abortion by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC); furthermore the Secretary of HBAC may not adopt in standards the services of abortions. And you want to see the different levels of possible benefits packages provided by the Commissioner of the HIE, just look up page 167, Sec. 303.

The voluntary choice of having a qualified health benefits plan is not prohibited or required to under the Act from providing abortion, and the one providing that qualified health benefits are the ones who decide if coverage for abortion is provided or not.

And then coverage under a public health insurance option will provide coverage for abortions. Because nothing in the Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing or prohibiting coverage of abortions.

So abortions will be covered. And if a person's plan is covered, then money will put into another account to hold the money coming from the taxpayers. But if taxpayers money is federal money, and that money will be used to pay for abortions, how are you telling me that this health care bill does not fund abortions?

Now, you keep talking about the Hyde Amendment. But which amendment has precedence, the Hyde Amendment or the Stupak Amendment?

Now, just so you understand, the Hyde Amendment is a rider that is on the annual apropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). So that means that if money is given to any hospital outside of that annual apropriations bill, then that money will be able to be used on abortion. Because the Hyde Amendmenty only applies to funds allocated by the annual apropriations bill for the DHHS.

So according to the current law, if anyone were to get health care in 2011, if the funds came from anywhere outside the annual apropriation bill for the DHHS, then abortion would be funded by the bill and by the government.

True, but if the federal law states that public funding for abortion is legal, then federal law trumps state law. And I can give you an example that is true, if you would like for me to.

And as I have shown you above. If money is given to any hospital outside of that annual apropriations bill, then that money will be able to be used on abortion. Because the Hyde Amendmenty only applies to funds allocated by the annual apropriations bill for the DHHS.

I will grant that one. I did read into that one. You are right, that is Roe v Wade basically.

It did not fail me, I was just not aware that a Manager's Amendment existed for this bill. I will blame that on ignorance. Yes you were right that the Manager's Amendment states to change it, but you used the wrong example man. Getting sloppy on me.

Now that we have that cleared up, answer me something. How is it possible that the government states that an affordability credit may not be used for payment of abortions, when once the credit is given to an individual, the government will not be able to track what money is being used to be paid for the abortion?

Please tell me where the IHS has anything related to the DHHS. Because the annual appropriation bill does not fund the IHS last time I checked, it just funds the DHHS, when the Hyde Amendment is involved in the Act.

I will give you that as well. I thought for some reason that the Hyde Amendment was not passed this past annual appropriation bill. I am not sure what I was thinking.

 

Hey dude, you're taking after stumbler, and it's not pretty. Try to restrict your posts to one screen and one idea each.