If these guys are against it, it must not be that awful …

Somehow, I got added to one of those awful address lists (I think it’s ’cause way back in the Dark Ages I took advantage of a link to a petition to complain that the petition was unconstitutional on its face) that … well … send you press releases from One News Now and the American Family Association. I usually just delete them, but the one today was too full of schadenfreud not to share at least the headline:
If House passes Senate bill, it’s game over – we’ll have Obamacare .

They do make one statement that might, possibly, contain a grain of truth. If the House does pass the Senate’s bill, what incentive will Senators have to address concerns expressed by the House members, or the differences in the two bills?

But the rest of their garbage-fueled objections are … well … see for yourself:

*The government will take over 1/6 of the American economy, and put government bureaucrats between you and your family’s health care providers.
* It will cost $2.3 trillion over 10 years when fully implemented and dump a huge debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren (Senate Budget Committee).
* It creates more than 110 new agencies and bureaucracies in the federal government.
* It will cut $500 billion from Medicare and $170 billion from Medicare Advantage, resulting in rationed and inferior medical care for senior citizens.
* It is “the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation that has ever come to the House floor for a vote” and contains numerous “federal pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for abortion” (Doug Johnson, National Right to Life Committee).
* It will require taxpayer funding for abortion, and will even require purchasers of private plans to pay a monthly fee to pay for other people’s abortions.
* It contains no conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to be coerced into performing abortions.

Garbage in, garbage out, folks.


10 responses to “If these guys are against it, it must not be that awful …

  1. grahamfirchlis

    The usual lies. If Obama announced he wanted to pour funding into a new technology that would deliver abundant energy so cheap there’d be no point in metering it, so powerful it could transform waste materials into foodstuffs and endless consumer items, thus ushering in an era of leisure and plenty for all humankind, these same people would demonize it and condemn him plus ask for money.

    30% of the populace is FUBAR. Time gone, due to their inept reasoning skills, they’d have all been eaten by sabertooths and cave bears or spent their lives tethered to a loom or down in a coal pit. Thanks to Liberalism and science, they can now survive and have enough leisure time to use the internet for fearmongering and fundraising. We have only ourselves to blame.

  2. The Other Sarah

    Well, actually, I prefer Liberalism, with all its faults and the attendant flies in the ointment, to the other option.

    Can you imagine if these cretins really did run the world?

    • grahamfirchlis

      Yes, Liberalism with all the flaws. Nothing else moves us forward.

      Can I imagine them running the world? I know we’re supposed to be wary of Godwin’s Law, but Hitler’s Germany does leap to mind.

  3. i think you’re too trusting. there’s nothing so awful that they couldn’t find some way to make it worse. if they hate it, that doesn’t mean it’s good, it just means that they haven’t killed it outright yet.

    * It will require taxpayer funding for abortion, and will even require purchasers of private plans to pay a monthly fee to pay for other people’s abortions.
    * It contains no conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to be coerced into performing abortions.

    oh how i wish these especially were true!

    • grahamfirchlis

      Tell me why on the second one. What benefit can there be from forcing health care providers to perform procedures they find morally objectionable?

      A special case for pharmacists, who under the terms of their licensure agree to dispense whatever a doctor legally prescribes, but for surgeons and nurses the same strictures don’t hold. I know the last thing I’d want is to have someone who found me repugnant and evil poking around my insides with a sharp instrument.

  4. The Other Sarah

    Oh, I think I know, Graham.

    It’s the fundamental treachery that comes out of being a doctor or a nurse and letting politics override standard (or better) care guidelines.

    But, for the example you mention above, I think we can absolve you re: Godwin.

    • grahamfirchlis

      Mmmm, I guess, but moral choices abound in both medicine and surgery. As two for-instances that leap to mind I know plastic reconstructive surgeons who won’t do elective cosmetic surgery and I’ve met general surgeons and pediatricians who won’t do circumcision. Neither of those being as complicated an issue as abortion, but still…I just think I’d like my surgeon to be in an upbeat, positive mood. Easy to say they all should be all the time, but I’ve been in operating rooms where the patient was a notorious jerk and while nobody ever tried to do harm they sure didn’t have the kind of attitude I’d want for myself. Just sayin’…..

      • g2-37190d24041196ff0ae862db799fb502

        Gotta say I understand your stance. The thing is, sometimes, emergency medicine doesn’t happen where there are multiple providers available. A genuinely dedicated anti-abortion provider’s conflict of conscience scares me, as the mother of sons — what if one of my daughters-in-law, someday, were to have an ectopic pregnancy, and be able only to reach a hospital where abortions are not done as a matter of conscience?

      • grahamfirchlis

        Fair point. Guess I was thinking more along the lines of an elective procedure, but if the number of providers is small and travel a burden, then granting moral exception could certainly become an infringement on the patient’s ability to exercise their own rights.

        A mess.

        Guess I don’t keep up enough on the crazies; is ectopic preganacy ever considered viable, even by the nutsos, to the point of refusing to excise it? I guess if all you’re doing is counting “souls” and believe an unconscious largely undifferentiated tissue mass can have one, then that could make sense, in a really jacked up way.

  5. The Other Sarah

    I have no solution, sadly.

    But “life of the mother” exceptions are being harped against across the USA in pulpit and talk-show cockpit (not a pun) even as we write….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s