Does BO's Executive Order mean anything? Forum

[Kim617]

If we develop the technology to allow the fetus to develop outside the womb entirely, which seems probable, then abortion under your definition would effectively be illegal.

This has long been one of my ideas for a charity if I ever became a zillionaire. Find some scientists willing to test pig and monkey fetuses or embryos, figure out a way to extract them way before term and grow them in an incubator, then find abortion-seeking women to be the test cases for human trials. If you could find a way to make removal and incubation (or implantation into a waiting surrogate mother) remotely affordable, abortion could be rendered moot.

It would also allow children to women who cannot carry a baby to full term. It would be remarkable.

[Eazy E]

I'm hardly saying it just came up. I mean, Hillarycare was defeated in the early 90s. Maybe I phrased that wrong. What I'm saying is, they don't believe in universal healthcare, so why would they pass it?

Nothing even remotely like "universal" or "socialized" health care can be found in this bill. The public option would have been the closest thing and it was squashed by...wait for it...Republicans.

[jks289]

I'm hardly saying it just came up. I mean, Hillarycare was defeated in the early 90s. Maybe I phrased that wrong. What I'm saying is, they don't believe in universal healthcare, so why would they pass it?

Nothing even remotely like "universal" or "socialized" health care can be found in this bill. The public option would have been the closest thing and it was squashed by...wait for it...Republicans.

The incredible irony of the "socialized" ignorance is that for people who have been denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions (like I have) have been forced to use COBRA and government high risk plans which are outrageously expensive. The bill actually encourages me and many others to use private instead of government healthcare. The effect is essentially the opposite of socialized. (I want to yell RETARDS, at the end of this. But will refrain.)

[Drake014]

I'm hardly saying it just came up. I mean, Hillarycare was defeated in the early 90s. Maybe I phrased that wrong. What I'm saying is, they don't believe in universal healthcare, so why would they pass it?

I was speaking of solving problems with our healthcare system. If that can be done without universal healthcare (as you propose), why didn't the Republicans do anything? Polls have shown that the American public has believed our system is broken for years now. Republicans did nothing because they didn't want to do anything.

[Kim617]

I'm hardly saying it just came up. I mean, Hillarycare was defeated in the early 90s. Maybe I phrased that wrong. What I'm saying is, they don't believe in universal healthcare, so why would they pass it?

Nothing even remotely like "universal" or "socialized" health care can be found in this bill. The public option would have been the closest thing and it was squashed by...wait for it...Republicans.

universal healthcare is different than socialized medicine. having a mandate that says everyone must have health care or pay a fine is type of universal health care...

[Drake014]

I'm hardly saying it just came up. I mean, Hillarycare was defeated in the early 90s. Maybe I phrased that wrong. What I'm saying is, they don't believe in universal healthcare, so why would they pass it?

Nothing even remotely like "universal" or "socialized" health care can be found in this bill. The public option would have been the closest thing and it was squashed by...wait for it...Republicans.

universal healthcare is different than socialized medicine. having a mandate that says everyone must have health care or pay a fine is type of universal health care...

No it isn't. The bill brings up those with healthcare to about 95%. That means 1 and 20 won't be insured. That's not universal.

[Kim617]

I'm hardly saying it just came up. I mean, Hillarycare was defeated in the early 90s. Maybe I phrased that wrong. What I'm saying is, they don't believe in universal healthcare, so why would they pass it?

Nothing even remotely like "universal" or "socialized" health care can be found in this bill. The public option would have been the closest thing and it was squashed by...wait for it...Republicans.

universal healthcare is different than socialized medicine. having a mandate that says everyone must have health care or pay a fine is type of universal health care...

No it isn't. The bill brings up those with healthcare to about 95%. That means 1 and 20 won't be insured. That's not universal.

So the bill doesn't mandate that everyone have healthcare? Please correct me, because I'm honestly asking. I heard Obama say that the other day, so I am going off of what he said.

[observationalist]

Interesting tidbit about the current bill from an email I received from IBR-info.org: The healthcare bill also includes student debt relief, in the form of decreasing the cap on IBR repayment plans to 10% for (I think) the Class of 2017, while decreasing years necessary for loan forgiveness from 25 years down to 20 (for non-public interest work). This will make the huge debts people take out for law degrees slightly more tenable, though clearly it won't benefit anyone currently in law school.

"Yesterday the House of Representatives unveiled an historic student aid reform bill, which will be voted on this weekend in a package with health care reform, and a vote in the Senate will quickly follow. The bill will significantly increase need-based Pell Grants at no cost to taxpayers, with savings generated by streamlining the federal student loan programs.


The bill will also enhance Income-Based Repayment (IBR) for borrowers who take out their first federal loan after 2014, lowering the IBR payment cap to 10% of discretionary income and forgiving any remaining debt after 20 years for these borrowers. As long-time proponents of IBR, we're disappointed that the changes won't apply to current borrowers, as President Obama had proposed.


We strongly support the bill, which helps reduce students' need to borrow by increasing Pell grants and makes IBR even more helpful for future borrowers. We will continue working to improve student loan repayment options for all borrowers, and will keep you informed of new developments."

[Kim617]

Interesting tidbit about the current bill from an email I received from IBR-info.org: The healthcare bill also includes student debt relief, in the form of decreasing the cap on IBR repayment plans to 10% for (I think) the Class of 2017, while decreasing years necessary for loan forgiveness from 25 years down to 20 (for non-public interest work). This will make the huge debts people take out for law degrees slightly more tenable, though clearly it won't benefit anyone currently in law school.

"Yesterday the House of Representatives unveiled an historic student aid reform bill, which will be voted on this weekend in a package with health care reform, and a vote in the Senate will quickly follow. The bill will significantly increase need-based Pell Grants at no cost to taxpayers, with savings generated by streamlining the federal student loan programs.


The bill will also enhance Income-Based Repayment (IBR) for borrowers who take out their first federal loan after 2014, lowering the IBR payment cap to 10% of discretionary income and forgiving any remaining debt after 20 years for these borrowers. As long-time proponents of IBR, we're disappointed that the changes won't apply to current borrowers, as President Obama had proposed.


We strongly support the bill, which helps reduce students' need to borrow by increasing Pell grants and makes IBR even more helpful for future borrowers. We will continue working to improve student loan repayment options for all borrowers, and will keep you informed of new developments."

I had heard that, though I'm not sure why it was piggybacked to the health care bill.

[YCrevolution]

..