Breaking: Virginia Federal Judge Upholds Obamacare
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Now, let me start by making sure you understand that this is not the big case brought by Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia Attorney General, on behalf of the commonwealth. This is a separate lawsuit I didn’t even know existed until I saw the news, captioned Liberty University et. al. v. Geitner et. al. The Hill reports on the decision here, and you can read for yourself, here. I haven’t read a word of it so no analysis yet. One thing to note is that if the Cuccinelli suit succeeds on the District Court level, it is more likely to be appealed to the Circuit level, if only to eliminate the conflict.
And the Fourth Circuit is about as different as you can get from the Ninth. By reputation the Fifth Circuit is more conservative, but the Fourth is close behind.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
My confreres have a few thoughts on this issue, Aaron:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/12/it-lives/comments/page/1/#comment
narciso (9d0688) — 12/1/2010 @ 6:14 amThe lawsuit was brought by Liberty University, which also argued that the law violates the First Amendment by requiring people to buy insurance that could cover abortions.
Jesus fetus fetishists vs. the law.
ajb (9df40f) — 12/1/2010 @ 6:40 amI don’t think “conservative” is necessarily of much help here. The conservatives that get into government power seem to be the sort who wish to conserve government power.
Soronel Haetir (19c078) — 12/1/2010 @ 6:48 amajb
Sure, what complete jerks they are for not wanting to participate in what they consider to be murder.
You discredit yourself with that kind of comment, Yelverton.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:03 amMore hate speech from Yelverton, I see.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:13 am“Participate”?
Buying insurance that covers abortions doesn’t mean that they have to, you know, go out and get abortions themselves.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:19 amBrought to you by the same Virginia conservatives that warn the TSA pat-downs are part of the ‘radical homosexual agenda.’ (He’s the guy who sends out mass emails from Townhall.com warning of gay and “thought control”).
Just to show you what passes for ‘info’ on a leading conservative news site. Knuckle draggers for jeebus.
ajb (9df40f) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:20 amJesus fetus fetishists vs. the law.
The world sincerely wishes that your mother had taken the opportunity to abort your disgusting ass, Zamfir.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:24 amThe incoherence tour continues.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:29 amAt this point, I don’t even trust his musical ability,
narciso (9d0688) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:30 amKman
please, you are dishonest, but not that dishonest.
yes, some people see paying taxes as participation.
You know, like Henry David Thoreau.
I mean seriously, why can’t you just try to understand where your fellow americans are coming from, for once in your small, partisan little ankle-biting life. you don’t have to agree, just try to understand.
This is why you suck as a lawyer, btw. You are so blinded by ideology, you can’t even recognize a contrary point of view.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:33 amDmac, you should check the other thread. Professor Yelverton is denying being “Yelverston.”
He thinks he is witty…and is half right.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:45 amAnd again…why the sockpuppeting?
A cosmic question.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:46 amI recognize the point of view of Liberty University, i.e., that supporting Obamacare through “taxes” amounts to “participating” in abortions.
But unlike you, I also recognize that their point of view doesn’t pass the laugh test, especially from a legal standpoint. By the same reasoning, I’m forced against my will to participate in a war which I oppose, because I pay taxes, some of which goes to furthering U.S. war efforts.
That dog don’t hunt.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:50 amKman, its a “dog” that hunts so well, that the concept has been enshrined in Federal appropriations for more than three decades.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:53 amEric, the thing about the interwebs is that now we know how many kinds of people that used to be locked in their parent’s basements actually exist – although you can still see them on display with Jerry Springer.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/1/2010 @ 8:21 amkmart’s a lawyer? Nice sense of non – dogmatism there, as in none.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/1/2010 @ 8:22 amI see Yelverton and kmart are getting their hate on again today. Pretty sad people.
JD (ab60db) — 12/1/2010 @ 8:22 amKman
> By the same reasoning, I’m forced against my will to participate in a war which I oppose, because I pay taxes, some of which goes to furthering U.S. war efforts.
Sure, you have never advocated a boycott, have you?
*rolls eyes*
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 8:24 amMaybe kmart can help zamfir when it’s arrested for protesting the anti – abortion protestors at his local clinic. Oh, wait – there aren’t any abortion clinics in his neck of the woods – how sad for widdle zamfir, he must feel all alone amongst all the bitter clingers in TN.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:03 amOr perhaps the real reason why it comes here to spew bile is that if it dared try that act in it’s own neck of the woods, it would be summarily beaten to a pulp.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:04 amIf you think abortion is murder, this is not acceptable. It’s unfair to force people to fund abortions, even though you’re granted Kman’s generous stipulation that you don’t have to personally get an abortion.
What a nasty little partisan.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:05 amBeing forced to buy products from companies that do something you find morally abhorrent doesn’t mean you have to do that thing yourself.
Except that this isn’t true in any but the most extreme sense. You ARE helping abort children in kman’s example. You should have the freedom to not associate, without penalty from the government, with abortion. The government shouldn’t fund it and I shouldn’t have to pay anyone else who funds it.
Kman’s extreme position could easily be turned around, but it’s kman and he never bothers to make sense or be consistent, so why bother?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:09 amKman
> By the same reasoning, I’m forced against my will to participate in a war which I oppose, because I pay taxes, some of which goes to furthering U.S. war efforts.
So if the government takes your tax dollars and gives it to, say, the catholic church, that is not forcing you to support the catholic church, at least financially.
See normally liberals get this. if you pay money to something, you are participating in it on some level. so they called to boycott south africa in the bad old days. and i honestly agreed.
but suddenly if it is about the desire not to pay for abortions, they change their tune.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:23 amAaron, they want to make you live up to your own set of rules. You give them some kind of intellectual honesty on some point, and they take it happily knowing they don’t have to do the same for you.
I think the federal government should require all citizens to donate to the GOP. It’s not like democrats have to vote for them, so it passes the Kman test.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:34 amHealth insurance is similar to gambling. The insurance company is betting that the insurer doesn’t get sick and the insurer bets that they will get sick. The health insurance company charges an amount that they think will give them a profit based on not every insurer needing health care. Those who don’t need health care are actually paying for those who do need health care. This means that if an health insurance company covers abortions, the customers who do not get abortions are paying for abortions and therefore “participating” in abortions. Since most Christians believe that abortion is murder, they are then participating in murder.
Is that clear enough?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:53 amI’m simply asking….
Pacifists can’t opt out of paying taxes simply because some of that money goes to wars, which kill people.
So why should religious people (or organizations) be any different, simply because what is at stake is abortion, rather than armed conflict?
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 9:58 amWhy should the government be able to tax people to fund things like roads and wars, but not religions and abortions, Kman?
Is that your question?
Because there’s an additional wrinkle in that insurance isn’t the same as taxation.
But even avoiding that major defect in your thinking, only the extreme say we shouldn’t fund national defense or roads or police departments or schools (to some extent or another). Abortions aren’t that sort of government service.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:02 amI’m simply asking … No, you are being your standard contrarian self. Mendoucheous and stalkerish to the bone.
JD (109425) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:02 amKman
> Pacifists can’t
Who is talking legality? I’m talking about their desire not to participate. the man you are defending didn’t mention the law, and i didn’t either.
But i do tend to think a society should not force a person to choose between obeying the law and obeying their conscience. So i do think as a matter of policy, no one should pay for abortions who don’t want to.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:03 amJD’s right. Kman wasn’t simply asking, and is douchey to pretend that he was just to persist in making lame points.
Hey, you don’t have to personally get an abortion! Stop whining that you’re buying them for your neighbors to murder your future neighbors! We let you have kids if you want (for now)!
Sometimes the extreme leftists let the mask slip and reveal themselves to be subhuman eugenicists, racists, or even worse. That’s the Planned Parenthood contribution to America. But I agree with JD that Kman’s not letting his mask slip… he’s just lazy in attempting to argue the opposite of whatever Aaron says.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:07 amwell, for one thing, defense of the nation, standing army and all that, is part of the extremely limited power granted to the Fed Govt. and enshrined in our Founding Documents (against which ALL Federal ‘legislation’ is supposed to be narrowly measured).
forcing US citizens to finance murder-for-hire (of anyone) as part of bigger unconstitutional forced purchase is not.
that reasoning – and activist judges be damned – is ALL that’s needed to argue against this and that should please pro-abortionists since NO ‘moral judgement’ (quelle horreur!) is required.
ShyAsrai (921609) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:14 amThe fundamental dishonesty of Kman was that he started off pretending that the issue of compelling funding of abortions did not exist. When challenged on that, he pretended that his argument all along was not that the argument did not exist – despite more than three decades of Federal appropriations legislation incorporating the position – but shifted to arguing that the issue was not a valid policy position with lame analogies.
I object to the dishonest rhetoric more than Kman’s weak contrary argument … wherever its goal post is at the minute.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:50 amHow about forcing US citizens to finance torture-for-hire?
Conservative judges say that’s ok.
If Bush did it, he was protecting America. If Obama did it, it must be immoral and unconstitutional.
ajb (9df40f) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:53 amI am, seeing as how it was a post about a legal decision.
That’s fine, but (again, I ask)…. would you apply this policy fairly and evenly, or is this just something that should only apply to evangelical people vis-a-vis their views on abortion? Are you prepared to apply it to pacifists and/or war objectionists regarding their moral opposition to war? And if not, why not?
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 10:55 am> Are you prepared to apply it to pacifists and/or war objectionists regarding their moral opposition to war? And if not, why not?
Well, as you are about to learn, there is an important distinction here. In this case, you are being required to pay money to private companies. with taxes for the war machine, you are paying the government.
And there is another distinction. Paying for abortion is optional. Paying for a military is not. We must have a military. If we didn’t have a military in 1776, we would speaking English today (yep, a joke, but you get my point). So the interest justifies brushing aside religious objections.
By comparison, why exactly should we feel the need to fund abortions anyway. First off, the entitlement state NEEDS a high birth rate in order to survive, so you would think liberals would, more than anyone, recognize the contradiction in creating an entitlement that reduces the abiltity to support all the other entitlements. one very well might say that one of the reasons why social security is in the brink is because of roe v. wade. But more basically there is no NEED to provide abortions. our republic has gotten on perfectly fine for well over 200 years without it. So why is it so important that you force someone to choose between obeying the law and obeying their conscience. isn’t it enough that you managed to get it made legal without anything as grubby as winning popular support? now you want to add insult to injury by making people pay for it, too?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:08 amajb/Yelverton, misrepresentation of the contents of a linked article. That’s par for the course.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:08 amSPQR – yelverton should stick to spamming for mediamatterz and strumming the banjo. Allah know the midget racist hilljack plagiarizer does not have 2 brain cells to rub together. Kicked your ass again, William.
JD (0d2ffc) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:15 amAaron Worthing,
ajb (9df40f) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:39 amPlease tell us how your personal relationship with Christ allows you to approve of forcing a 12 yr old to bear the child of her incest rapist? How it’s ok for the ‘culture of life’ president Bush to hire private contractors to commit torture, execute innocent people, but not ok to give women the same healthcare options that they would receive in most any industrialized nation on earth?
Isn’t that a word for word copy of the insane troll Yelverton was using over and over again?
Why is this guy such a bigot, anyway? What did Aaron ever do to ajb to justify that kind of hate speech? I guess ajb can’t handle a discussion of Obamacare’s legality. Poor little fella is crying now about Christians oppressing people.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:49 amAttention: fetus fetishists for Jesus – if you don’t like abortion rights, you should move someplace where abortion rights are non-existant … like in Muslim theocractic Saudi Arabia or the socialist state of Venezuela. Their laws, you will find more to your liking.
ajb (9df40f) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:53 amI have no idea what you’re trying to say, ajb, because you’re rambling.
Do you have something to say about Obamacare’s legality aside from ‘I hate Christians’?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:54 amThat’s a distinction without a difference. I pay the government, they pay Blackwater, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin or some other defense contractor. Much of goes to private companies who build and maintain the war machine. If I am morally offended by torture and/or war, aren’t I still be forced to “participate” in the war effort?
Put another way, would Liberty University lose their moral outrage if the system was arranged so that it pays the government, who in turn pay insurance companies, who in turn pay abortionists? I think you would have to say “no”.
Pacifists would disagree with you that having a military/standing army is a “must”. And we got along for quite a while without a standing army, history boy.
But be that as it may, we have determined — through the legislative process — that everyone having health insurance is a “must”.
So the question remains the same: why should religious people get to opt out of “participating” in abortions, while pacifists don’t get the same opportunity to opt out of “participating” in the military?
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:56 amajb, or Ireland. Incoherence seems to be your main product.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 11:59 amKman, it was the legislative process that created the Hyde Amendment that you keep ignoring. Democrats asserted that the Obamacare legislation would not alter that status quo. I guess you only recognize democracy when you like the result.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:01 pmWilliam Yelverton – tell us about your personal carnal relationships with Oliver Willis, and a goat.
JD (109425) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:02 pmThanks, JD, I’m trying to eat my lunch here.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:04 pm“So the question remains the same: why should religious people get to opt out of “participating” in abortions, while pacifists don’t get the same opportunity to opt out of “participating” in the military?”
You’re skipping over most of the defects in your arguments, simply dismissing them as irrelevant even though they are fatal. I guess you intend to just filibuster this denial 100 times, but you’ve already lost the argument as to the distinction, and you don’t get to reverse that by pretending there’s no difference.
Anyhow, read the constitution if you don’t understand what gives the government the power to fight wars and doesn’t give it the power to establish religions. Good grief. You’re so muddled and extreme, bouncing back and forth, because you simply must disagree with Aaron, even if he says something very basic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:07 pmSorry, SPQR. That was totally uncalled for, especially during my friends’ out west lunch hour.
I forgot, Willie the racist midget hilljack track star, how are those felony slander charges going, the ones you had vowed to press against a blogger?
JD (6e25b4) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:14 pmJD, I was OK until you mentioned Oliver Willis.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:16 pmI’m simply asking….
The classic tell of someone who has no intention of engaging in a honest discussion. What kind of lawyering does kmart do, anyway? Traffic court?
Attention: fetus fetishists for Jesus
The classic tell of a complete wussy boy.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:17 pmKman
> That’s a distinction without a difference. I pay the government, they pay Blackwater, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin or some other defense contractor.
So it is your position that the government can prohibit you from engaging in a boycott?
Not too long ago, i seem to remember that you believed that law schools could accept federal money but then BOYCOTT military recruiters. I said, if they take the money they take the strings attached and, btw, the Sup. Ct. agreed with me. Unanimously. Now you believe that you are not allowed to dissociate yourself with any private company if the government wants to force you to do business with them.
No, the fact that they are forcing them to associate with a private corporation makes a MASSIVE difference.
> Pacifists would disagree with you
Yeah, and they would be wrong. They are entitled to their own utopian opinion, but i am talking fact. The fact is we were made free and kept free by rough men and women willing to do violence on our behalf.
I know liberals like to pretend that nothing is for certain, but i don’t play that game. they are entitled to their own opinion, but the necessity of military power is a fact.
And mind you i am not saying that the constitution says this, but you asked me why i would force one association and not the other.
Oh, and if the pacifist morons want to truly dissociate themselves from the government they can do two things. they can go to jail, like Thoreau. Or they can leave. you shouldn’t force a person into a dilemma like that lightly, but in defense of my country? not a hard call.
But to fund abortion? bah, why? Why is it so important to the left to have it happen?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:17 pmajb – Please tell us about your personal sexual relations with your relatives and how many abortions they obtained as a result. How many incest babies have you sired?
daleyrocks (df87cd) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:19 pmajb – As a musician, do you use a flute or a piccolo when you feel the need for release?
daleyrocks (df87cd) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:24 pmWe can eliminate these arguments by abolishing the overreaching Income Tax. Strip govt away of its funding, and all these issues become state issues.
Janice Longhorn (613b97) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:35 pmI don’t want to get distracted with side issues. My argument here is that religious people (or institutions) with moral objections shouldn’t be treated differently by law than secular people (or institutions) with moral objections.
It’s not a fact, AW. You can’t prove it. It is a matter of opinion (an opinion I happen to agree with).
And that’s your problem. You can’t distinguish between an opinion and a fact. Just because an opinion is popular, or deeply-felt, doesn’t make it a fact.
But check out your contradictory views:
Now if you meant that — and were something other than a partisan hack — then you wouldn’t have written this:
So basically you’ll toss aside having standards and morals and, you know, RULES for society if the issue is something which YOU care about.
Some kind of champion for individual freedom you are. “Small unobtrusive government for me, but not for thee.”
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:41 pmI do not want to get distracted by side issues just cracked me up. Thanks.
JD (306f5d) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:45 pmFor kman, the point is to disagree with you, but for a lot of leftists, the point is to reduce the number of poor people. It doesn’t make sense to cleanse the population of poor people, mostly blacks, if you make them pay for it too. Keeping abortion cheap is critical to Planned Parenthood’s mission of eliminating undesirables.
And I realize just how kooky this sounds. To someone who isn’t familiar with these ideas, I sound ridiculously paranoid because only a monster would want abortion just to reduce undesirable elements from the population. It’s the saddest thing about our country.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 12:46 pmYou think?
Seriously, Dustin. If the liberal plan was to kill poor people through abortion, liberals would oppose Planned Parenthood. Better that the “undesireables” perform back alley abortions, killing the mother AND the baby, right?
You clearly have a conservative mind — a mind plagued by a rather skewed sense of reality. Sadly, the skewed reality is just a little too extreme in your particular case.
So let me so bold as to say something to you on behalf of A.W. and his “side”: “Shut up — you’re not helping.”
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 1:03 pmWhy do kman and ajb hate black people?
daleyrocks (df87cd) — 12/1/2010 @ 1:04 pmAre you denying my claims?
You say I have a skewed reality for noting the historical fact that planned parenthood was founded for the purpose of eliminating poor blacks.
I agree, it sounds kooky to someone who is ignorant. It is predictable that you take my honesty and try to rub it in my face, but I’d like to see you actually deny my claim.
If you’re saying I’m wrong, I will quickly prove that you’re ignorant. Are you willing to make a clear statement?
“If the liberal plan was to kill poor people through abortion, liberals would oppose Planned Parenthood. ”
You’re being ridiculous. Of course you will have more abortions if they are cheap and safe and routine, you moron.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 1:08 pmMaybe you should give him a hint, Dustin. A cluebat to the melon does not seem to work.
JD (6e25b4) — 12/1/2010 @ 1:33 pmI said no such thing because YOU said no such thing.
You said “or a lot of leftists, the point is to reduce the number of poor people…. Keeping abortion cheap is critical to Planned Parenthood’s mission of eliminating undesirables.”
The mission of Planned Parenthood is not to “eliminate undesireables”, nor do “a lot of leftists” desire to reduce the number of poor people.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/1/2010 @ 1:33 pmJust imagine how Sanger would have been treated were she a Republican.
JD (6e25b4) — 12/1/2010 @ 1:46 pmKman, yeah, you said exactly what I claimed you did. No surprise whatsoever that you’re unwilling to answer my challenge. You said I had a skewed reality and was a kook when I simply stated the disturbing facts about Planned Parenthood’s origins.
You’re constantly telling people they are crazy or wrong without ever backing it up. your rebuttal is always to deny the entire argument even took place.
It’s pathetic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 2:30 pmKmart
> I don’t want to get distracted with side issues
Its not a side issue. According to you, the government can force you to engage in business with a company you don’t want to. Thus killing the ability to boycott.
> It’s not a fact, AW. You can’t prove it.
Yes, it absolutely is a fact. If Britain didn’t have a military in 1939, they would be speaking German today. If we didn’t at the same time, or didn’t grow one quickly, we would be, too. There are few things more certain in history. Seriously, do you think that a Martin Luther King approach would have worked with Hitler? Well, MLK didn’t even think that.
> Now if you meant that — and were something other than a partisan hack
How completely dishonest. I demonstrate a principled difference, and you don’t accept that… so I am a hack?
And mind you the projection is stunning given that you once denounced my interpretation of a legal opinion without reading the opinion itself.
Oh and by the way, Kman, when O’Keefe called planned parenthood and said they wanted to donate, but only wanted the money to go to kill black babies, they agreed to it. So their racism, or at least acceptance of racism, is not purely a historical fact.
Oh right, but he is an evil republican, so you can’t believe him. even though he has never been shown to lie, except during the stings themselves.
Hack.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 2:33 pmKman
Btw, who is Trig Palin’s real mommy?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/1/2010 @ 2:36 pmYou can call Planned Parenthood today and ask to donate for the specific purpose of eliminating a poor or black child. They will excitedly accept your donation and promise to abort a black or a poor.
There’s proof of this on youtube. Their original purpose was quite clearly eugenic in nature, and that hasn’t changed. It’s atrocious.
Kman said this can’t be because they are liberals. He’s blinded by partisan rage and unwilling to discuss the implications of my claims, so he has to simply deny them and refuse to let the conversation move on to the next phase.
Once we show that many people are exactly the eugenicists I claims, hoping to reduce the number of poors and blacks by killing them in the womb, we can dispense with Kman’s assertions about the general impossibility of someone on the left being evil and start discussing whether it’s the same thing to support Kman’s racist abortions as it is to pay taxes to fund the military.
Going all the way back, kman insists he’s making a legal claim and unable to draw a distinction between the Constitutionally provided war powers and the constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion. I don’t want anyone to mistake me for attempting to argue with Kman, who is simply a shill with no mind of his own.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 2:36 pmAaron beat me to the punch on the modern black elimination donations, which is no surprise since he beats me to the punch 99% of the time.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/1/2010 @ 2:39 pmNo hat tip for that first link
narciso (9d0688) — 12/1/2010 @ 3:06 pmLeftists like kmart are not interested in this thing you call “facts,” that much is clear over the past few months.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/1/2010 @ 3:25 pmYou need to draw a distinction between tax dollars funding abortions and tax dollars funding or subsidizing plans that provide abortions.
There is an executive order (and some terms of Obamacare) that generally prohibit the funding of abortions. And this is part of the law:
“(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.−
Jimbo (87e69d) — 12/1/2010 @ 3:45 pm(A) IN GENERAL.− If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [my note: abortions], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.− In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not described in subparagraph (A), segregate an amount equal to the actuarial amounts determined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees from the amounts described in subparagraph (A).
jimbo
But that is bull and everyone in the government knows it.
If you are talking about a money laundering case, they say “money is fungible.” but suddenly it is not?
There is no segregation of funds within a plan.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/1/2010 @ 4:19 pmAaron, would you rather the amounts be put in a lockbox?
Jimbo (87e69d) — 12/1/2010 @ 4:29 pmno, i would rather people were free to buy or not buy insurance as they saw fit.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/1/2010 @ 4:33 pmI just object to the notion that everyone has to suffer equally under a government-administered health care system.
It’s not about which troll makes the snarkiest anti-baby or evil jebus post.
It’s simply the federal government tends not to do things very well or very efficiently. Sure, there’s a role for federal government in health care. There should be, but administration is not it.
Ag80 (e828a4) — 12/1/2010 @ 7:14 pm