Health Care

You have got to give republicans credit: they tried their best to kill health care legislation. First, the tried to kill it by an effort to bar "earmarks" in the legislation; earmarks that republicans themselves helped put it the bill. Second, they claimed the legislation was unconstitutional, because in requiring fines for those w/o insurance, the bill violated the 10th Amendment. That idea failed on a party line vote of 60 to 39. Third, the GOP conducted a non-filibuster filibuster and that failed by the necessary 60 votes to 40. Again straight party line. The final vote to pass HR-3590 was 60 to 39.

What does one see in a party that opposed Social Security in the 1930' and still does, opposed Medicare in the 1960's, and now is dead set against a health care plan? The GOP has not met a war it did not want to fund or a social program it did not want to kill.

(Source: "How your US lawmakers voted" The Record on 12/27/09)

Health Care and Abortions

The news this am is about the possibility that the needed 60 votes for the health care bill has been reached. Nebraska democrat Ben Nelson will vote for the bill if stronger curbs are placed on abortions being covered under the bill. This presents an interesting compromise. What if we could insure some 50 million Americans-who are without health coverage now-but by doing so some abortions would occur? Are some people so opposed to a legal procedure that they would deny millions of Americans needed care?

The article I am reading also notes that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is also opposed to legislation that does not "seek stricker abortion curbs". "The bishops played an significant role in drafting an abortion-related provision in the House bill". Tell me why an organization that has allowed its members to sexually abuse young children and then hide them from proper prosecution for those crimes should even be listened to?