Universal Health Care for America

[Guest greenzen]

The far left shuns pro-lifers like vampires. How weird is that? I remember when vampires used to be the monsters we feared.

 

 

They call us anti-abortionist. The definition of anti is a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc. The definition of a pregnancy is a developing a fetus or fetuses within the womb. A fetal heart starts beating around three weeks. As we all know a beating heart is needed for life.

 

The truth is abortionist are anti-life. But, they lack the conscience to accept it.

 

[Guest Human]

I want this "Bill" to pass. I want the general public to get a taste of its own medicine.

It seems the only way the general public can learn is the hard way. So let it be the hard way.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The far left shuns pro-lifers like vampires. How weird is that? I remember when vampires used to be the monsters we feared.

 

 

They call us anti-abortionist. The definition of anti is a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc. The definition of a pregnancy is a developing a fetus or fetuses within the womb. A fetal heart starts beating around three weeks. As we all know a beating heart is needed for life.

 

The truth is abortionist are anti-life. But, they lack the conscience to accept it.

 

[Guest greenzen]

Living creatures respond to environmental stimuli.

[Guest greenzen]

This is Communist Socialism:

 

The Chinese Government merely severely restricted the entry of foreigners into the country and prohibited the importation of blood products in an attempt to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS to China. Yet, from the beginning of the 1990’s until the beginning of the new decade, the virus was propagated within China mainly through the means of blood banks. Despite of numerous warnings, the Chinese Government denied the extent of the crisis, adopting only a limited preventative policy, focussing on the surveillance of drug users and prostitutes and the promotion of ‘healthy sexual morality’. It was not until the SARS crisis of 2003 that the Government was finally forced to acknowledge the scale of the epidemic, which now affects the whole of the population, and to start to develop a prevention and treatment policy.

 

Yet, practice and legislation that discriminate against HIV carriers and AIDS sufferers persist; thus since November 2004, HIV carriers are permitted to take the examinations to enter into the public service. However, AIDS sufferers are automatically excluded. “Numerous local laws explicitly deny AIDS sufferers the right to marry. In the province of Jilin, pregnant women who have AIDS are subjected to forced abortion”, stated Judith Commeau, the author of the report.

 

Apart from discriminatory provisions written into Chinese law, people originating from the ‘AIDS villages’, particularly from Henan, are subject to collective ostracism: “nobody wants to marry a boy or a girl from one of these communities, on the markets nobody will buy their produce, the army no longer recruits there, and when a youth is looking for a job outside his province, he lies about where he comes from”, a study by Pierre Haski, quoted in the report, stated.

 

70% of HIV/AIDS carriers recognised by the last census are presently concentrated in rural areas, where hospital facilities and doctors are severely lacking. In rural areas, according to the Vice Minister of Health, Zhu Qingsheng, more than 50% of the population is unable to afford medical care and 40-60% of rural people lapse into poverty as a result of an illness. Furthermore, the generic antiretroviral drugs available in China that are extremely expensive on an average Chinese salary, are of poor quality.

 

“Not only are the measures adopted by the Chinese authorities to combat AIDS largely insufficient, but also, independent NGOs working on this issue are subject to systematic repression. The release of statistics regarding the extent of the epidemic is often considered as a state secret and journalists cannot freely gather information and report on the issue, particularly in the Henan province which has been particularly affected by the AIDS epidemic”, the President of FIDH, Sidiki Kaba, stated.

 

The report has been submitted to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which will examine the initial report by China under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the end of this month.

[Guest greenzen]

The reason why I am writing this is that people need to understand what is coming before them. A Future State where those that come from a non-desired place or have a non-desired genetic trait legally can be systematically severed from the Human Race.

[Guest greenzen]

After the horrors of the Holocaust, the international community responded to Nazi Germany's methodically orchestrated acts of genocide by approving the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948.

[Guest LAW]

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said f[our] three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

 

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to achieve and cherish a lasting peace among ourselves and with the world. to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with the world. all nations.

 

[Endorsed by Lincoln:]

 

Original manuscript of second Inaugeral presented to Major John Hay.

 

A. Lincoln

 

April 10, 1865

 

Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address; endorsed by Lincoln, April 10, 1865. Transcribed and annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois. Available at Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division (Washington, D.C.: American Memory Project, [2000-02]), http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/malhome.html.

[Guest Human]

Tuesday interview with Glenn beck should be most interesting in seeing how the democrats are going to be spinning this one?

 

I thought I could get revenge on the democrats and the public for their short sightedness all in one shot "Health Care Bill".

 

Maybe I still will huh? ]:)

[Guest Connecticut Yankee]

It is time for Rahm Emanuel to negotiate healthcare or resign as President Obama's Chief of Staff. Someone has to take blame for this.

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

On WKPQ 105.3 FM "Washington Week and Review with Congressman Eric Massa" weekly radio show, Congressman Massa accused the White House of forcing him out of office not because of his alleged misbehavior but because he opposed the health care legislation, since his departure means House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will need one less vote to secure passage of the bill.

"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," Massa said. "You think that somehow they didn't come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote in the health care bill? Then, ladies and gentlemen, you live today in a world that is so innocent as to not understand what's going on in Washington, D.C."

Massa assailed Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, as the "son of the devil's spawn."

"He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote," Massa said. "He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."

The colorful congressman recalled an incident in which he said Emanuel accosted him over a vote in the House gym shower, when Massa was "unclothed as a jaybird" and Emanuel stood "not even with a towel wrapped around his tush."

Look for him on Glen Beck tomorrow.

[Guest LAW]

Remarks by the President on Health Insurance Reform

 

Arcadia University

Glenside, Pennsylvania

 

11:23 A.M. EST

 

Despite all the challenges we face -- two wars, the aftermath of a terrible recession -- I want to tell everybody here today I am absolutely confident that America will prevail; that we will shape our destiny as past generations have done. (Applause.) That’s who we are. We don’t give up. We don’t quit. Sometimes we take our lumps, but we just keep on going. That’s who we are. But that only happens when we’re meeting our challenges squarely and honestly. And I have to tell you, that’s why we are fighting so hard to deal with the health care crisis in this country; health care costs that are growing every single day.

 

I want to spend some time talking about this. The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families and for businesses and for our government. (Applause.) It’s forcing people to cut back or go without health insurance. It forces small businesses to choose between hiring or health care. It’s plunging the federal government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.

 

The young people who are here, you’ve heard stories -- some of you guys still have health care while you’re in school, some of you may still be on your parents’ plans, but some of the highest uninsurance rates are among young people. And it’s getting harder and harder to find a job that’s going to provide you with health care. And a lot of you right now feel like you’re invincible so you don’t worry about it. (Laughter.) But let me tell you, when you hit 48 -- (laughter) -- you start realizing, things start breaking down a little bit. (Laughter.)

 

And the insurance companies continue to ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; on who can pay and who can’t pay. That’s the status quo in America, and it is a status quo that is unsustainable for this country. We can’t have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people. (Applause.) We need to give families and businesses more control over their own health insurance. And that’s why we need to pass health care reform -- not next year, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, but now. (Applause.)

 

Now, since we took this issue on a year ago, there have been plenty of folks in Washington who’ve said that the politics is just too hard. They’ve warned us we may not win. They’ve argued now is not the time for reform. It’s going to hurt your poll numbers. How is it going to affect Democrats in November? Don’t do it now.

 

My question to them is: When is the right time? (Applause.) If not now, when? If not us, who?

 

Think about it. We've been talking about health care for nearly a century. I’m reading a biography of Teddy Roosevelt right now. He was talking about it. Teddy Roosevelt. We have failed to meet this challenge during periods of prosperity and also during periods of decline. Some people say, well, don't do it right now because the economy is weak. When the economy was strong, we didn’t do it. We’ve talked about it during Democratic administrations and Republican administrations. I got all my Republican colleagues out there saying, well, no, no, no, we want to focus on things like cost. You had 10 years. What happened? What were you doing? (Applause.)

 

Every year, the problem gets worse. Every year, insurance companies deny more people coverage because they’ve got preexisting conditions. Every year, they drop more people’s coverage when they get sick right when they need it most. Every year, they raise premiums higher and higher and higher.

 

Just last month, Anthem Blue Cross in California tried to jack up rates by nearly 40 percent -- 40 percent. Anybody’s paycheck gone up 40 percent?

 

AUDIENCE: Nooo --

 

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, why is it that we think this is normal? In my home state of Illinois, rates are going up by as much as 60 percent. You just heard Leslie, who was hit with more than a hundred percent increase -- 100 percent. One letter from her insurance company and her premiums doubled. Just like that. And because so many of these markets are so concentrated, it’s not like you can go shopping. You’re stuck. So you’ve got a choice: Either no health insurance, in which case you’re taking a chance if somebody in your family gets sick that you will go bankrupt and lose your home and lose everything you’ve had -- or you keep on ponying up money that you can’t afford.

 

See, these insurance companies have made a calculation. Listen to this. The other day, there was a conference call that was organized by Goldman Sachs. You know Goldman Sachs. You’ve been hearing about them, right? (Laughter.) So they organized a conference call in which an insurance broker was telling Wall Street investors how he expected things to be playing out over the next several years, and this broker said that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep on raising premiums, but because there’s so little competition in the insurance industry, they’re okay with people being priced out of the insurance market because, first of all, a lot of folks are going to be stuck, and even if some people drop out, they’ll still make more money by raising premiums on customers that they keep.

 

And they will keep on doing this for as long as they can get away with it. This is no secret. They’re telling their investors this: We are in the money; we are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship.

 

So how much higher do premiums have to rise until we do something about it? How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance? How many more businesses have to drop coverage? All those young people out here, after you graduate you’re going to be looking for a job. Think about the environment that’s going to be out there when a whole bunch of potential employers just tell you, you know what, we just can’t afford it. Or, you know what, we’re going to have to take thousands of dollars out of your paycheck because the insurance company just jacked up our rates.

 

How many years -- how many more years can the federal budget handle the crushing costs of Medicare and Medicaid? That’s the debt you’re going to have to pay, young people. When is the right time for health insurance reform?

AUDIENCE: Now!

 

THE PRESIDENT: Is it a year from now or two years from now or five years from now or 10 years from now?

 

AUDIENCE: No!

 

THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s right now. And that’s why you’re here today. (Applause.)

 

Leslie is a single mom -- just like my mom was a single mom -- trying to put her daughter through college. She knows that the time for reform is now.

 

Natoma Canfield -- self-employed cancer survivor from Ohio -- she wrote us a letter. Last year her insurance company charged her over $6,000 in premiums; paid about $900 worth of care. Now they’ve decided to jack up her rates 40 percent next year. So she’s had to drop her insurance, even though it may cost her the house that her parents built. Natoma knows it’s time for reform.

 

Laura Klitzka -- this is a friend of mine, somebody I met when I was campaigning in Wisconsin -- Green Bay, Wisconsin. She’s a young mother; she’s got two kids. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt. And now she spends her time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children. I just talked to Laura this past weekend, and let me tell you, she knows that the time for reform is right now.

 

So what should I tell these Americans? That Washington is not sure how it will play in November? That we should walk away from this fight, or do something -- do something like some on the other side of the aisle have suggested, well, we’ll do it incrementally; we’ll take baby steps; we’ll do --

 

AUDIENCE: No!

 

THE PRESIDENT: So they want me to pretend to do something that doesn’t really help these folks.

 

We have debated health care in Washington for more than a year. Every proposal has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. I know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but both parties have found areas where we agree. What we’ve ended up with is a proposal that’s somewhere in the middle -- one that incorporates the best from Democrats and Republicans, best ideas.

 

Think about it along the spectrum of how we could approach health care. On one side of the spectrum there were those at the beginning of this process who wanted to scrap our system of private insurance and replace it with a government-run health care system, like they have in some other countries. (Applause.) Look, it works in places like Canada, but I didn’t think it was going to be practical or realistic to do it here.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who believe that the answer is just to loosen regulations on insurance companies. This is what we heard at the health care summit. They said, well, you know what, if we had fewer regulations on the insurance companies --

 

AUDIENCE: Boo!

 

THE PRESIDENT: -- whether it’s consumer protections or basic standards on what kind of insurance they sell, somehow market forces will make things better. Well, we’ve tried that. I’m concerned that would only give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums and deny care. (Applause.)

 

So the bottom line is I don’t believe we should give government or insurance companies more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your own health insurance. (Applause.)

 

And that’s why my proposal builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. But I can tell you, as the father of two young girls, I don’t want a plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor. So we’re going to preserve that.

 

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. Listen up. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. Within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions would suddenly be able to purchase health insurance for the very first time in their lives, or the first time in a long time. (Applause.)

 

This year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Applause.) This year, they will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. (Applause.) And they will no longer be able to arbitrarily and massively hike your premiums -- just like they did to Leslie or Natoma or millions of others Americans. Those practices will end. (Applause.)

 

If this reform becomes law, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year -- free check-ups so that we can catch preventable illnesses on the front end. (Applause.) Starting this year, there will be no more lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care that you can receive from your insurance companies. There’s a lot of fine print in there that can end up costing people hundreds of thousands of dollars because they hit a limit.

 

If you’re a young adult, which many of you are, you’ll be able to stay on your parents’ insurance policy until you’re 26 years old. (Applause.) And there will be a new, independent appeals process for anybody who feels they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company. So you'll have recourse if you're being taken advantage of. (Applause.) So that’s the first thing that would change and it would change fast –- insurance companies would finally be held accountable to the American people. That's number one.

 

Number two, second thing that would change about the current system is this: For the first time in their lives -- or oftentimes, in a very long time -- uninsured individuals and small business owners will have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. (Applause.) If it’s good enough for Congress, it should be good enough for the people paying Congress its salary -- that's you. (Applause.)

 

Now, the idea is very simple here, and it's one -- (audience interruption) -- I'm sorry, go ahead. (Applause.) Let me explain how this would work, because it's an idea that a lot of Republicans have embraced in the past. What my proposal says is that if you aren’t part of a big group, if you don't work for a big company, you can be part of a pool which gives you bargaining power over insurance companies. It's very straightforward. Suddenly, just like the federal employees -- there are millions of them so they can drive a harder bargain with insurance companies -- you, as an individual or a small business owner, could be part of this pool, which would give you more negotiating power with the insurance companies for lower rates and a better deal. (Applause.) Right?

 

Now, if you still can’t afford the insurance that's offered -- even though it's a better deal than you can get on your own, but you still just can't get it, then what we're going to do is give you a tax credit to do so. And these tax credits add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. (Applause.) Because the wealthiest among us, they can already afford to buy the best insurance there is; the least well off are already covered through Medicaid. It’s the middle class that gets squeezed. That's who we need to help with these tax credits. (Applause.) That’s what we intend to do. (Applause.)

 

Now, I want to be honest. Let’s be clear. This will cost some money. It’s going to cost about $100 billion per year. Most of this comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion a year that America already spends on health care. It’s just that right now a lot of that money is being wasted or it’s being spent badly. So with this plan, we’re going to make sure that the dollars we spend go to making insurance more affordable and more secure.

So I'll give you an example. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. (Applause.) They are getting billions of dollars a year from the government, from taxpayers, when they’re making a big profit. I'd rather see that money going to people who need it. (Applause.)

 

We’ll set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance. They’re going to have 30 million new customers; there’s nothing wrong with them paying a little bit of the freight. And we’ll make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of Medicare, just like everybody else does. (Applause.)

So the bottom line is this: Our proposal is paid for. All the new money generated in this plan goes back to small business owners and individuals in the middle class who right now are having trouble getting insurance. It would lower prescription drug prices for seniors. (Applause.) It would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for American families and physicians assistants and therapists. I know there are -- got great programs here at Arcadia. (Applause.) I was hearing about the terrific programs you have at Arcadia in the health care field. Well, you know what, we’re going to need more health care professionals of the sorts that are being trained here, and we want to help you get that training. And that’s in this bill. (Applause.)

 

So I’ve mentioned two things now: insurance reform and making sure the people who don't have health insurance are able to get it.

 

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions -– families, businesses, and the federal government. (Applause.) As I said, you keep on hearing from critics and some of the Republicans on these Sunday shows say, well, we want to do more about cost. We have now incorporated almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care –- ideas that go after waste and abuse in our system, including in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and we extend the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

 

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade because we’re spending our health care dollars more wisely. (Applause.) Those aren’t my numbers. Those aren’t my numbers --they are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress for what things cost.

 

So that’s our proposal: insurance reform; making sure that you can have choices in the marketplace for health insurance, and making it affordable for people; and reducing costs. (Applause.)

 

Now, think about it. I think -- how many people would like a proposal that holds insurance companies more accountable? (Applause.) How many people would like to give Americans the same insurance choices that members of Congress get? (Applause.) And how many would like a proposal that brings down costs for everyone? (Applause.) That’s our proposal. And it is paid for, and it’s a proposal whose time has come. (Applause.)

 

The United States Congress owes the American people a final, up or down vote on health care. (Applause.) It’s time to make a decision. The time for talk is over. We need to see where people stand. And we need all of you to help us win that vote. So I need you to knock on doors. Talk to your neighbors. Pick up the phone. When you hear an argument by the water cooler and somebody is saying this or that about it, say, no, no, no, no, hold on a second. And we need you to make your voices heard all the way in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

 

They need to hear your voices because right now the Washington echo chamber is in full throttle. It is as deafening as it’s ever been. And as we come to that final vote, that echo chamber is telling members of Congress, wait, think about the politics -- instead of thinking about doing the right thing.

 

That’s what Mitch McConnell said this weekend. His main argument was, well, this is going to be really bad for Democrats politically. Now, first of all, I generally wouldn’t take advice about what’s good for Democrats. (Laughter.) But setting aside that, that’s not the issue here. The issue here is not the politics of it.

 

But that’s what people -- that’s what members of Congress are hearing right now on the cable shows and in the -- sort of the gossip columns in Washington. It’s telling Congress comprehensive reform has failed before -- remember what happened to Clinton -- it may just be too politically hard.

 

Yes, it’s hard. It is hard. That’s because health care is complicated. Health care is a hard issue. It’s easily misrepresented. It’s easily misunderstood. So it’s hard for some members of Congress to make this vote. There’s no doubt about that. But you know what else is hard? What Leslie and her family are going through -- that’s hard. (Applause.) The possibility that Natoma Canfield might lose her house because she’s about to lose her health insurance -- that’s hard. (Applause.) Laura Klitzka in Green Bay having to worry about her cancer and her debt at the same time, trying to explain that to her kids -- that’s hard. (Applause.) What’s hard is what millions of families and small businesses are going through because we allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country. (Applause.)

 

So let me remind everybody: Those of us in public office were not sent to Washington to do what’s easy. We weren’t sent there because of the big fancy title. We weren’t sent there to -- because of a big fancy office. We weren’t sent there just so everybody can say how wonderful we are. We were sent there to do what was hard. (Applause.) We were sent there to take on the tough issues. We were sent there to solve the big challenges. And that’s why we’re there. (Applause.)

 

And at this moment -- at this moment, we are being called upon to fulfill our duty to the citizens of this nation and to future generations. (Applause.)

 

So I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know how passing health care will play politically, but I do know that it’s the right thing to do. (Applause.) It’s right for our families. It’s right for our businesses. It’s right for the United States of America. And if you share that belief, I want you to stand with me and fight with me. (Applause.) And I ask you to help us get us over the finish line these next few weeks. (Applause.) The need is great. The opportunity is here. Let’s seize reform. It’s within our grasp. (Applause.)

 

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless. (Applause.)

[Guest X]

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) should vote against healthcare

 

* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

* Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

* Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

* Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

* Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

* Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

* Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)

[Guest HUMAN]

X you simply don't get it on health care. I can end this game that's being played real fast.

 

I'm just waiting to see if I am the only adult online. A crazy adult, but an adult none the less.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) should vote against healthcare

 

* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

* Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

* Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

* Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

* Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

* Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

* Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)

[Guest Chris Emery]

Nearly a third of children with special healthcare needs are underinsured, and where a child lives strongly influences whether he or she will have adequate healthcare coverage, a new study found.

 

The unadjusted proportion of underinsured special-needs children varied strongly by state, ranging from 24% in Hawaii (standard error=1.75) to 38% in Illinois (SE=2.13), found the study published online March 8 in Pediatrics. After adjusting for factors such as age, race, and poverty level, the proportion of children without adequate healthcare coverage ranged from 23% (SE=1.89) in Hawaii to 38% in New Jersey (SE=2.21).

 

"Our results indicate that where a child lives is strongly related to the likelihood that his or her health insurance is adequate," Michael D. Kogan, PhD, of the Health Resources and Services Administration, and colleagues wrote. "Moreover, only a small part of that association is explained by the underlying demographic and health characteristics of children. These findings suggest that current efforts to add coverage incrementally for the uninsured, although important, will do little to address the problems of the underinsured or the state disparities demonstrated here."

 

While considerable attention has recently focused on providing health insurance coverage for children who have none, much less attention has focused on the problem of underinsurance, according to the authors. In particular, they wrote, little attention has been given to children with special healthcare needs, who have chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional conditions -- or are at high risk of these conditions -- and require special services beyond what is normally required. Previous research has found that although 14% of children in the U.S. have special healthcare needs, they account for 42% of the medical expenditures for children.

 

The authors noted that focusing on underinsured children is useful for several reasons. First, "states are being called on to play a larger role in insuring their populations since the inception of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and the continuing shift away from employer-based health insurance." In addition, "gaining additional understanding of the large state variations could lead to more effective interventions aimed at reducing disparities," and "the best performing states can serve as benchmarks for what might be achieved by others."

 

To determine the proportion of special needs children in each state, Kogan and colleagues analyzed data from the 2005-2006 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN), a nationally representative study of more than 40,000 children. Children were considered underinsured if a parent reported that the child's insurance did not usually or always cover needed services and providers, or if the insurance did not reasonably cover costs.

 

Of the parents of special-needs children who responded to the survey, 12.7% reported that insurance did not offer benefits or cover services that met the child's needs, 28.0% reported that the costs that were not covered by insurance were not reasonable, and 9.3% reported that the insurance did not allow the child to see the healthcare providers that he or she needed.

 

"Although there is perennial interest in the Census Bureau's periodic reports on the number of uninsured individuals in the U.S., our analysis of the NS-CSHCN suggests that underinsurance affects far more children than does lack of insurance, at least among children with special healthcare needs," the authors wrote.

 

Generally speaking, children living in Midwest states tended to have better coverage, while those living the Southwest had less coverage. Children with coverage from private insurers were more likely to be underinsured (33.5%) than those with public coverage (30.9%).

 

Children were also more likely to be underinsured if their parents had to cut back or stop working due to their condition, if they were between the ages 6 to 17 years, if they were poor, and if they lived in non–English-speaking households.

 

The authors cautioned that the study relied on parents' assessment of their children's healthcare status, which may have introduced recall bias into the findings, and that the study excluded children who were homeless or living in institutions.

 

"Also, because the focus of this study was underinsurance, states that provide less comprehensive public coverage to more children will seem to be 'lower performing' than states that provide more comprehensive public coverage to fewer children, because uninsured children were not considered 'underinsured' and were excluded from the analyses," the researchers wrote.

 

Despite these limitations, the authors concluded that underinsurance is an large problem that remains to be addressed. "If policymakers are interested in ensuring equitable treatment in the healthcare system for children with special healthcare needs, then policy initiatives aimed at reducing underinsurance and increasing uniformity of coverage across states are also needed," they wrote.

 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-1055v1

[Guest T. Hartman]

I am Catholic and abortion is against my religious belief. Although, I do believe that a woman does have a right to choose. I am just not trying to fund her mistake.

 

For decades Liberals have used litigation to distort the history of America, twisting the Constitution into an enemy of all religions rather than a protector of all.

[Guest AlwaysRed]

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding health care reform:

 

“For more than a year now, Democrats in Washington have been focused — some might even say fixated — on making dramatic changes to the American health care system as we know it.

 

“Now, it’s an open debate as to whether spending so much time and energy on this issue was in the best interests of the public at a time of record unemployment and a need to address jobs and the economy.

 

“But what’s not open to debate is that the plan they came up with was fundamentally flawed — that it focused too much on expanding the size and cost of government and not enough on the core problem with our health care system, which is cost.

 

“This is why Americans have been telling Democrats in Washington to scrap their plan and start over. And this is why so many Americans are so frustrated with government right now. The administration says we need to pass its health spending bill to show Americans that government still works. Americans are saying just the opposite. They’re saying that the first thing Washington can do to show it’s working is to listen to what the public is saying — to scrap this bill and to start over.

 

“Unfortunately, Democrat leaders in Congress aren’t interested. They’re still clinging to the same-old bill and the same-old process Americans rejected last year. They’re more determined than ever to jam their bill through Congress by any means necessary.

 

“So, over the next few weeks, we’re going to see a replay of the same kind of arm-twisting and deal-making we saw in the run-up to Christmas. I say we’re going to see it — but in reality we won’t see any of it. We’ll have to read about all the deals and the arm-twisting only after the final bill hits the floor, because all of this arm-twisting and deal-making is going on behind closed doors. And it’s already started.

 

“Somehow the administration seems to think all this arm-twisting and deal-making will prove to the American people that government works. I should think that Americans will draw the opposite conclusion. Americans don’t like this bill any more today than they did three months ago. They don’t like the frantic backroom deal-making any more now than they did then.

 

“In the midst of all this, it’s understandable that a lot of Democrats are on the fence about whether to vote for this bill, about whether to vote for this process. But the reasons they’re giving for being on the fence really don’t square with reality — and they’re not going to fly with the public.

 

“Some say they like the current bill because they say it reduces costs. It doesn’t. The administration’s own experts say the bill increases health spending by $222 billion more than if we took no action. In other words, this bill would bend the cost curve up, not down.

 

“Others say they like the current bill because they say it reduces the deficit. But even if you grant that highly speculative premise, the one bill that the Senate will be voting on tomorrow would wipe away every dime of those projected savings with one stroke of the President’s pen. If you believe that the health bill will save $100 billion, then you have to also acknowledge that the bill the Senate will pass this week increases it by $100 billion.

 

“So, far from moving in a more fiscally responsible direction, the health spending bill that the White House now wants Congress to pass before Easter would move us in a less fiscally-responsible direction. And this undercuts the entire point of reform.

 

“The administration recognizes the weakness of its argument. That’s why it’s trying to create a sense of inevitability about this bill. Once again, it’s imposing an artificial deadline to put pressure on members. It’s talking about how we’re in the middle of the final chapter of this debate. The administration wants members to believe they’re characters in a screenplay, and that the ending of this play is already written. This is an illusion. House members aren’t buying these arguments any more. In fact, many of them are already walking off the set. And my guess is that a lot more of them are about to.

 

“They know that we may be nearing the final act for this bill and the legislative process, but that it’s just the beginning for those who support it. Americans don’t want this bill. They’re telling us to start over. The only people who don’t seem to be getting the message are Democrat leaders in Washington. But they can be sure of this: if they cut their deal, if they somehow convince enough members of Congress to come on board, they’ll get the message then. The public will let them know how they feel about this bill.”

[Guest X]

X you simply don't get it on health care. I can end this game that's being played real fast.

 

I'm just waiting to see if I am the only adult online. A crazy adult, but an adult none the less.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest X]

What is your point?

[Guest Human]

I can really end this debate. The only reason that I am not is because I am punishing the Democrats for their insane "Really Insane" argument on the nuclear issue for Iran.

No Bull. I am very serious.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is your point?

[Guest Francis]

What happened at this event? Did anyone show up?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPMp2uX40Yo

 

Join the posse in D.C.

 

Join Governor Howard Dean and help us perform a citizens' arrest of the insurance companies

 

We need your help to put the insurance companies and every corporate enemy of change on notice: We will not allow the big corporations and their lobbyists to bully Congress into inaction.

 

Where:

Gather in Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. to hear Governor Dean, then march to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel where the insurance company conference is being held

 

When:

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

10:30 AM

 

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/page/s/march9dc

[Guest HUMAN]

The democrats HAVE to CHOOSE. To work with the Republicans or not?

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Looks like Representative Kildee has buckled his convictions and will let the Senate version of Healthcare pass.

 

http://www.rollcall.com/news/44032-1.html

 

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), a key supporter of Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) anti-abortion language intended for the health care bill, said Tuesday night that he’s satisfied the Senate abortion language prohibits federal funding of abortions and will likely vote for the bill.

 

“I think the Senate language keeps the purpose of the Hyde amendment,” Kildee told reporters. “I’ll probably vote for it.”

 

Kildee’s conversion undermines the position of Stupak, his fellow Michigan Democrat who has been demanding changes to the Senate bill.

[Guest Francis]

The New York times is reporting that Representative Dan Lipinski, Democrat of Illinois, warned party leaders on Tuesday that he would vote against major health care legislation if it does not include tight restrictions on the use of federal money for insurance coverage of abortions.

 

In a statement, Mr. Lipinski said he supported the House bill in November only because it contained such restrictions. “My position on this issue has not changed since then,” he said. “Protecting the sanctity of life is a matter of principle for me and tens of millions of Americans. In addition, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion. Therefore, if a health care bill that fails to prevent federal funding of abortion is brought to the floor of the House, I will vote against it.”

[Guest Judie Brown]

American Life League salutes Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall. He is a tireless human rights advocate who has dedicated his entire life to recognizing the personhood of all human beings – including preborn babies and those with disabilities – two groups whose lives are constantly threatened by the abortion lobby.

 

"Bob may have used a poor choice of words at an event to defund Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest purveyor of abortions - but his remarks have been twisted out of context, a tactic which takes focus off the truth in an effort to brand Marshall as the enemy of the disabled.

 

And the truth is clear: there is an undeniable link between abortion and increased risk of disabilities in the children of women who have had abortions.

 

"The link between abortion and preterm birth for future pregnancies has been documented countless times yet seldom reported on. In September 2009, Dr. Prakesh Shah released a meta-analysis in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology using data from 37 published studies.

 

"The Shah meta-analysis found that one induced abortion increases the risk for preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy by 36 percent. Two or more induced abortions increases that risk by 93 percent. One induced abortion increases the risk of low birth weight by 35 percent, and more than one induced abortion increases that risk to 72 percent.

 

"The Mayo Clinic reports that complications of preterm birth may include:

 

Difficulty breathing

Episodes of stopped breathing (apnea)

Bleeding in the brain (intracranial hemorrhage)

Fluid accumulation in the brain (hydrocephalus)

Cerebral palsy and other neurological problems

Vision problems

Intestinal problems

Developmental delays

Learning disabilities

Hearing problems

We hope that those decrying Delegate Marshall’s statement are as horrified by the effects of abortion as they are by their perception of the words Delegate Marshall used to describe them: abortion has major, undeniable consequences – one of which is the danger it poses to the future brothers and sisters of children killed by abortion.”

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 

Delegate Bob Marshall: Statement on Recent News story by Capital News Service (22 February 2010)

http://delegatebob.com/news/statement-on-recent-news-story-by-capital-news-service

 

BJOG: Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses (16 September 2009)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

 

Mayo Clinic: Premature Birth Complications

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/premature-birth/DS00137/DSECTION=complications

[23Feb10, Washington, DC; PharmFacts E-News Update, 23Feb10]

[Guest August]

Looks like this study contradicts the Mayo Clinic Report.

 

We analyzed the association between previous induced abortions and risk of preterm birth. Methods: This was a case-control study. Cases were 502 women who delivered preterm babies at the Clinica Luigi Mangiagalli and the Obstetric and Gynecology Clinic of the University of Verona. Controls were 1,966 women who gave birth at term (≧37 weeks of gestation) to healthy infants of normal weight. Results: The odds ratio for all preterm births was 0.7 (95% CI 0.5–1.1) for women reporting 1 induced abortion and 1.6 (95% CI 0.7–3.5) for those reporting 2 or more induced abortions (χ2 trend p = 0.81). Previous induced abortions did not increase the risk of preterm birth, both in small and normal for gestational age preterm infants. No difference emerged in risk factors for infants born at <32 and 32–36 gestational weeks. Conclusion: This study does not support the suggestion that induced abortions, as performed in Italy during the study period, increase the risk of preterm delivery in subsequent pregnancies.

 

Dr. Elena Ricci

University of Milan

Via Commenda 12

IT–20122 Milan (Italy)

Tel. +39 02 50320 252, Fax +39 02 33200 231, E-Mail elena.ricci@unimi.it

 

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000253848