Palin's new anti-health care reform Facebook post is full of old falsehoods
On March 14, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a new anti-health care reform essay on her Facebook page that contains numerous falsehoods regarding reconciliation, House rules, and "federal funding of abortion."
Palin rehashes falsehoods about the House vote, reconciliation, abortion funding
Palin: Democrats want to use reconciliation to "bypass the regular voting procedure." In a March 14 Facebook post, Palin accused Democrats of trying to "ram through their takeover of our health care system regardless of the consequences" and of being "determined to use the Senate reconciliation process as a parliamentary trick to bypass the regular voting procedure."
Palin: House Democrats are trying to pass health care "without actually voting on it." Palin also accused House Democrats of trying to pass the Senate health care bill without a vote. She said: "The latest twists and turns in the Obamacare drama seem almost surreal. One minute the Democrat [sic] leadership is trying to amend a bill before the president has even signed it into law, and the next minute they're trying to draft a new rule that will allow the House to 'deem' a bill passed without actually voting on it!"
Palin falsely suggests that the Senate bill provides "federal funding for abortion." Palin commended the "Republicans in Congress" and the "Democrats [who] are standing with them" for "holding the line" in opposing health care reform. Palin specifically cited Rep. Bart Stupak as an example of a Democrat who is "holding the line" by saying "he won't vote for the Senate bill if federal funding of abortion is included." Stupak has repeatedly falsely claimed that the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion, while the abortion amendment he sponsored in the House bill does not. Stupak has also falsely maintained that his amendment does not go beyond the Hyde Amendment, which currently prohibits the federal funding of abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest.
Fox Nation highlighted Palin's post. Fox Nation posted Palin's Facebook essay and highlighted it with the headline "Palin: 'This is the Final Push!'" From Fox Nation:
Reconciliation is already part of Senate voting procedure, and has been used to pass health care legislation
Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."
Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)
Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform the health care system. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program:
On NPR, Rosenbaum stated, "[T]he way in which virtually all of health reform ... has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process." During the February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, health policy correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."
House would still need to vote on changes to Senate bill
Report: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. Contrary to Palin's claim that the House would " 'deem' a bill passed without actually voting on it," CongressDaily reported (subscription required) that the rule would require that the "House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version" for passage. From NationalJournal.com's CongressDaily:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Senate bill prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted by Hyde
Senate bill prohibits issuers from using federal funds "for purposes of paying for" abortion. The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."
Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.
Current law allows for Medicaid to provide coverage for abortions restricted by Hyde by using similar fund segregation. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.
The Fresh Prince
Palin-Bachmann 2012!!!!
Did you read page 2069? Of course not - because if you do, you will be proven wrong.
From this article...
Quoting page 2069 has been all the rage lately with right wingers, and they are being proven wrong, time and again.
Full bill link...
You keep claiming that page 2069 allows for federal funding for abortions, well, it doesn't. It does say something about States able to opt out. And then the following pages talk about the Hyde Amendment, and the ability of people to PAY into exchanges if they so choose, if they want the potential of abortion coverage, as in, they're paying for that coverage with their own money.
"If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i)" - i.e., abortion - "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services."
Stupak is Stupid because he doesn't understand that the government does NOT allow federal funds to be spent on abortions and this provision is part of the Healthcare Reform bill introduced to the House [and Senate].
Stupak also don't want poor people to use their OWN money to pay for abortions. How crazy is that? Who do he think he is?
This, bought and sole politicians, want this languish incorporated into the Senate Healthcare Reform bill. He knows this is not possible.
His objective is the same as Republicans objective: "Kill the bill".
You are correct he does not want poor people (or rich people) to use ther OWN money to pay for abortions. Absolutely correct! It is not crazy at all - it is pro-life.
Poor women have more abortions than rich women. If we make abortion prohibitively expensive, the poor women will not be able to afford it, and will have no choice but to give birth to their babies. This is the goal of the pro-life movement.
If we can't ban it today, we can certainly chip away at it piece by piece. Making it unaffordable to the poor is but one example of this.
We pay all the expenses if the mother signs a contract promising not to kill her baby. The program gives the mother housing. She is required to be employed or actively enrolled in school and take parenting classes and religious instruction. The program also pays for diapers, clothing, etc. for the baby once he/she is born. She doesn't know that the contract is not legally binding, but she is certaily led to believe that it is.
I pay taxes because I am FORCED to do so. I contribute to Our Cousin Elizabeth because I WANT to.
YOU and yor organization provide care if the person receives "religious instruction". YOU force people to have religious education in order to receive help. That's downright disgusting. How about helping just because it's the right thing to do and not a chance to gain a captive audience and then blackmail them into religious indoctrination? You whine about Obama trying to indoctrinate our children, yet you just admitted you approve of not providing aid unless the person in need agrees to religious indoctrination. You are one disgusting, sorry piece of s--t.
ARE you F'n kidding me? Boy, if that isn't taking advantage of someone I don't know what it is. Moreover, I would love to see what a lawyer says about that statement, BJ. Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
It is not Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against They Neighbor. I have not borne false witness AGAINST anyone.
It is a case of competing interests. Saving lives is what is most important.
Obviously, it is morally justified to deny to a Gestapo officer that you are harboring a Jew when you are. Obviously the people involved witht he Underground Railroad in the 1840s and 1850s were morally justified if they denied it.
So to is it morally justifiable to lie if it prevents the loss of a human life in an abortion.
By your logic all people involved in the Underground Railroad (Harriet Tubman, Fredrick Douglass, etc) were all criminals. I say they were courageous heros who did the right thing.
Abortion takes a human life. It is murder - whether the law recognizes so or not.
People had awakenings after the Civil War and in Germany post WWII. So too will be the case with the barbaric practice of abortion.
AGAINST whom am I bearing false witness. I am not hurting anybody by misleading a woman in order to save a life (my parish priest agrees with this by the way). However, I am certainly helping someone by saving his/her life.
I know that I am doing the will of Jesus when I do whatever I can to prevent an abortion.
So is a three year old child. Should we kill them too if they become inconvenient. A three year old can not survive on its own without help from his/her parents.
If you don't believe in shooting people, then don't shoot people. But who are you to tell me what I can and can't do with my guns. You are infringing on my freedom by telling me that I can't shoot people solely because it offends your moral sensibilities.
Plus if you and this organization really care about saving babies; then why all the requirements?
Seems to me this organization only cares about mothers and saving babies who will become or are already of the same religion as the church which promotes this program.
Nope. I'll just grab a coat hanger, an old mattress, and start performing them for $50. Cash. Walk-ins accepted.
My personal goal is to kill as many babies as possible. Because I really, love killing babies.
What does it matter that Stupak (or Stupid) ONCE voted for the House bill? The question is why does he want to kill it now? Could it be that someone got to him? You know, bought and sold or dose he want to protect big insurance companies?
What sense does it make to change his vote now, knowing federal funding NEVER was part of healthcare reform (status quo will remain the same)?
I stand by my assessment of Stupak. He is stupid if he think he can stop people from paying for things with their OWN money. That's why Polosi decided to drop him from consideration. You say it's "pro-life", but it is not against the law to pay for abortion, so say the Supreme court.
The law can prevent you for paying for things with our own money. You can not use your own money to buy a slave. You can not legally use your own money to buy drugs. You should not be able to use your own money to pay someone to murder a preborn baby. Someday it will be illegal to have an abortion. Slavery was once legal and society evolved. The same will be teh case with abortion.
What got to Stupak? His conscience.
By the way, just to reiterate, things like:
"She is required...religious instruction."
and
"She doesn't know that the contract is not legally binding, but she is certaily led to believe that it is."
are why Christians are held in such contempt. People like YOU bring to life all the nightmares of what a religious society would look like. You would be doing the rest of the Christians that read this website a HUGE favor by no longer identifying yourself as such. I'm sure they'd be grateful.
Says you. If I earn it, then I spend it however I choose. Legally (food, clothing, hobbies, etc.), or illegally (prostitution, drugs, etc.). Spending my hard-earned money is my choice. So, BJFan, you don't think it's fair to HAVE to pay taxes. You think you should have the choice not to? Why then, do you think pro-choice women like the thought of having the choice to abort or not abort repealed? If you truly think taxation is wrong, why don't you work at repealing them instead of Roe-v-Wade?
Pro-choice women don't like the thought of repealing Roe v. Wade because they don't value human life.
"You haven't a clue about what criminalizing abortion does"
I don't care.
Ladies and gentlemen, BJ fan is a prick.
Why, just the other day, someone was standing on a ledge about to commit suicide. I was walking by, and encouraged him to jump. By golly, he jumped and went "splat" all over the pavement. I cheered, and then celebrated my good work with a martini and a cigar.
I guess that is why Pro-Life promoters are also Anti-War supporters and hate the U.S. Military so much.
Listen dummy, you can buy anything someone sells you, whether it's legal or illegal, the difference is you can get in trouble if you are caught doing something illegal. If someone wants to get an abortion using their own money their is no law to pervent them from doing so. Stupid, stupak want there to be a provision in the Healthcare Bill baring women from paying for abortion with their OWN money, despite the fact that there is no law against it. What Stupak wants doesn't make any sense, nor do your argument.
We can never prevent all people from having illegal abortions (any more so than we can prevent gangs from shooting people). However, we can place as many obstacles as possible in the way. Stupak language undeniably places obstacles in between a woman and abortion.
The problem you have with your argument is that it completely ignores the truth.
Once, not so long ago, abortion WAS illegal. Women were at times forced into making decisions that endangered their own lives when terminating an unwanted pregnancy, for whatever reason they chose to exercise the right to control their own bodies. Children were forced to have children and rape victims were forced to have the children resulting from the rape. Like any other repressive law that seeks to make people bow to the will of a minority, the law was often broken, often by otherwise good and law-abiding doctors who believed strongly that there is a fundamental difference between a "potential human" and a baby and that until the baby was born, or at least was well into its development, that the wants, needs and desires of the woman whose body people like yourself seek to control were the most important thing.
Then came enlightenment. The archaic and cruel laws that denied a woman choice over what she did with her own body were thrown out and more reasonable and progressive law was enacted.
Now, as you and your ilk do in so many cases, your loud-mouthed self-righteous minority claim that you somehow represent the high ground and the majority of Americans when you very much do not. You seek not to see our great nation continue to progress but to regress back to another time, a time when you were perhaps more comfortable but many others were much more repressed.
So, by all means, help all the young pregnant women you can, give them the opportunity to have healthy babies in a loving environment if they so choose and support and care for those babies that the mothers are too poor, too young, too disadvantaged to take care of themselves.
But don't you believe for one minute that you have a right to tell anyone else how to live their lives and what moral compass they should follow. Don't claim the moral high ground when you speak of "helping" these young mothers out of one side of your mouth and "deceiving" them out of the other. Don't claim the moral high ground for your cause when your cause has been the bringer of death and terror to doctors and their patients who are following the laws of the land and the dictates of their conscience.
Yet you sick people are against the death penalty for a guy who murders little kids! And worse , you people want to cuddle confirmed Islamic terrorists who would love to saw off your head!
There is no doubt in any sane persons mind you lefties are mentally disabled.
Hey retiredinsf - I think Bingo is getting ready to start. Don't forget your marker.
Please post the text which supports your reasoning and explain how it states what you are claiming. I have seen several people post the text and it is proving you wrong; so please explain how you read it differently.
He runs scared as soon as someone introduces actual facts into the discussion.
He runs scared as soon as someone introduces actual facts into the discussion.
Once a baby's born, it's on it's own.
God bless the child, my a$$.
"except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."
Why would you or anyone be against this?
Let's go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 of the Senate-passed bill. It says, "If a qualified plan provides [abortion] coverage ... the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services." (This is on Page 2072.) That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions. (Except in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life-the same exceptions granted under current law.) If a health insurer selling through the exchanges wishes to offer abortion coverage-the federal government may not require it to do so, and the state where the exchange is located may (the bill states) pass a law forbidding it to do so-then the insurer must collect from each enrollee (regardless of sex or age) a separate payment to cover abortion. The insurer must keep this pool of money separate to ensure it won't be commingled with so much as a nickel of government subsidy. (This is on Pages 2072-2074.)
Abortion funding is not paid for with federal tax dollars which is against current law except in cases of rape or incest. Thos who choose a plan that covers abortion are required to pay extra. The extra that is paid by that group creates the pool of resources to cover the cost of abortions. In order for federal tax dollars to be funding abortions the tax dollars would have to come out of every taxpayer's pocket.
--- Sarah Palin
In regards to your abortion justifications - if abortion is not worth considering because it is not paid for in the bill, then why are so many democrat representatives holding out unless the abortion allowances are taken out of the bill? This isn't something that only Palin is worried about. You only have to look to some of your democrat representatives for that.
Wrong - MMFA has a vendetta against lies, misinformation, and conservative propaganda.
Why do wussy wingnuts fear getting quoted so much?
Peddle your whine somewhere else. If your side was capable of honesty, MMFA wouldn't exist. You want MMFA to go away, well you know what to do.
Get Rupert Murdoch to buy MMFA and shut it down??? :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKF5cNuwG4g&feature=player_embedded
Does she take herself down here? She absolutely rips the Obama healthcare takeover to shreds. I'm sure you are capable of callling her names and engaging in character assasination, but can you SUBSTANTIVELY dispute anything she says? She nails it here!
You can't argue with a liar and an idiot. That includes you, BJ Fan.
Sorry, just kidding.
I think we all know that when she is president she will not pay simple lip service and the pro-life cause. She will actively seek to roll back abortion. She will cut spending. She will take a hard line with Iran. She will be an inspirational leader who can serve as a role model for younger generations. With Sarah as president, we can be proud again.
Sarah will not only be president, she will be one of our greatest presidents. 1,042 more days!
Exactly. The republican politicians are laughing at the religious right because all they have to do is toss out a few code words and the money/votes start rolling in. These pro-life extremists are being used, don't realize they're being used, and apparently don't care that they're being used.
Sarah stated that there are points in Alaska (Wasilla is not none of them) where one can see Russia. This is factually true. In GOing Rogue she states that when Tina Fey made the statement, people sent Sarah pictures of themselves on the Western coast of Alaska in which Russia is clearly visible in the background.
The "I can see Russia from my house" line is a cheap attempt at smearing and slanderint Sarah. She never said it.
Nah, she'll quit before she's half-way through her 1st term ... if elected that is.
If Sarah Palin ran for president, it would guarantee another term for Obama. So I'm all for that. Especially if that kooky Michelle Bachmann's on the ticket.
If Sarah Palin ran for president, it would guarantee another term for Obama. So I'm all for that. Especially if that kooky Michelle Bachmann's on the ticket.
EPA
FAA
FDA
HTSA
FEMA
Dept of Education
Dept of Homeland Security
DOT
OSHA
ArmyCorps of Engineers
Subsidies to States(Schools,Police,fire,roads,bridges,etc)
...and many other Federal sponsored or subsidized expenses that states can't pay for right now due to lack of tax revenue.
et al......
It is totally delusional to not talk of tax increases if we are serious about deficit reduction.Conservatives are insulting the electorate when they say they can cut enough spending to reduce deficits without providing details on those cuts.
They will quibble about 0.5% of the budget as earmarks and ignore real issues!!!
So what is Sarah's detailed plan?
"Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, etc. will try anything to take down MMFA because they have a vendetta against President Obama and anything liberal."
"One minute the Democrat [sic] leadership is trying to amend a bill before the president has even signed it into law" Yea, that happens sometimes.
...oh wait. She works for Fox News now. Now she's being paid to repeat information about things they know nothing about.
It sure is fun being a CELEBRITY...!
Do you think People magazine is gonna do another cover...?
What these people are trying (unfortunately successfully) to imply is that ELECTIVE abortion is federally funded in the bill - which is what is NOT true.
It has only been suggested - and will almost certainly not happen that way, anyway.
The so-called "Slaughter Solution" has an actual name, you know. It's been around since the 70s, and it's a fairly standard legislative procedure. It's called the self-executing rule, and like the reconciliation rule that Republicans so desperately tried to demonize as the "Nuclear Option," it's been used by both parties to advance their agendas against the wishes of the minority.
So, again, why don't you go ahead and actually try reading the Constitution. Don't wrap yourself in the flag, don't quote documents you haven't read, and don't speak of things you don't understand.
But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
All in favor of olives, say "aye".
I spell my name Danger!
Suck it up. You. Were. Wrong.
The only reason to use this particular mechanism to move healthcare ahead is because the dems do not have the votes to take an actual vote on the Senate bill. A seemingly significant number of dem reps, and I welcome your argument here, find various portions of the senate bill objectionable. The "rule" as you describe it, allows them to move the senate bill to the president for signature, without having to actually vote on the senate bill.
~
Listen, I don't mind if you disagree with me. That the foundation of Democracy, and if people like you disagree with people like me, then we'll eventually arrive at a majority consensus. But when you lie to steal the point, well that just makes you a D-bag.
So, to recap one of my posts from above, the self-executing rule, like the Byrd rule in the Senate, is in accord with Article 1 Sec 7 because a vote will occur. There'll be ayes and nays and journals will record names and legislation will pass, amen. The only element of normal House procedure that is altered is the debate, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. Now, while debate is normally a fine thing, I think we can both agree -- scratch that -- reasonable people can agree that Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated their reluctance to debate issues on their merits. Instead, they recruit the stupid and the gullible to construct a de facto echo chamber for their outrageously construed objections to the workings of democracy. So, no. You're not getting an apology for not knowing what you're talking about.
Did you get that?
Voting, yes.
Debate, no.
They will vote.
Constitution intact, spirit and letter.
- cognitively challenged
- poorly informed
- intentionally lying
- totally ignornant of Senate/House procedures
- only interested in propaganda and not the needs of the American people
I would love to see Sarah outline substance. Could you find me what her solution is to the health care crisis? I'll hang up and listen.
Why complicate your words with thinking?
"Eliquent" must be the opposite of eloquent.
And it's not because you have any proof in the matter, Bobby Jindal fan. Rather, it's because you don't understand that, no matter how hard you believe something, that will not ever make it true. And, it's no longer governor Palin. She quit. She's a quitter. She's now a 'consultant' with the FOX Propaganda channel.
I do not believe he was magna cum laude - show me proof.
In her college graduation, she wears a black robe and appears to be five years older than in the photo in which she is wearing a red robe.
Normally, it is reserved for people of high scholarship, but not always. Barry won an election. Barry won the Democrat primaries - does that mean he was more qualified than Hillary Clinton? Give me a break!
Barry did not have one single article published by the law review. He is the only editor in the history of the Harvard Law Review to never publish a single article. I wonder why? Hmmmm
Someone thinking this narrowly and this shallow but not even being able to explain it and never having to defend it... does not show a person with a lot of smarts!She also shows a lot of problems with facts.You and Sean Hannity are alone on this one...well maybe in that 25-30% that think the "U betcha" girl is qualified to be President!!
Trying reading someone's remarks before you comment on them.
Welfare reform is apparently budgetary too. Who knew?
For being so pro-fetus, you sure are anti-child.
Why anyone would defend these immoral insurance companies is beyond me.
Please oh, please....reconcile away....
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to all of those legislators voting for the Venezucubanization of the United States of America.
Embarrassing.
Embarrassing."
Is that anything like Vitameatavegetin?
Also have, I think, a previous post that I hit 'save' on, and it's still sitting there.
If MMFA stated that the distance from the sun to the earth is 93,000,000 miles, but Palin and Fuchs Noose says the distance is 93,000 miles, they'd go with the 93,000 miles as a valid figure because Palin and Fuchs Noose said so, and they'd find a way to discredit the astrophysicists and astronomers who are actually experts in the field.
Palin, the former half-term Governor, current-nothing and future-even-less, charmed the all-Republican audience with her folksy folksiness and her homespun homespunnery. Atypically, Palin was wearing clothes that she had paid for herself. At the end of the event, she shared her recipe for mooseface pie.
In response to Palin's attack on Rep Grayson, Grayson actually complimented Palin. Grayson praised Palin for having a hand large enough to fit Grayson's entire name on it. He thanked Palin for alleviating the growing shortage of platitudes in Central Florida. Grayson added that Palin deserved credit for getting through the entire hour-long program without quitting. Grayson also said that Palin really had mastered Palin's imitation of Tina Fey imitating Palin. Grayson observed that Palin is the most-intelligent leader that the Republican Party has produced since George W. Bush.
When asked to comment about what effect Palin's criticism might have, Grayson pointed out, "As the Knave's horse says in Alice in Wonderland, 'dogs will believe anything.'" Earlier, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, Grayson said, "I'm sure Palin knows all about politics in Central Florida, since from her porch she can see Winter Park," which is part of Grayson's district.
Grayson said that the Alaskan chillbilly was welcome to return to Central Florida anytime, as long as she brings lots of money with her, and spends it. "I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them," Grayson added, alluding to Politifact's "liar, liar, pants on fire" evaluation of much of what Palin has said .
Scientists are studying Sarah Palin's travel between Alaska and Florida carefully. They hope to learn more about the flight patterns of that elusive migratory species, the wild Alaskan dingbat. Perhaps somebody needs to inform Sarah that you cannot enter into a battle of wits completely unarmed
And thanks for confirming you people are not normal n'cest.
Pervert.
Go away, dingbat.
The debate WAS quite transparent. They had all kinds of open meetings.
And yeah, something this big DOES require 2000 pages. Just because you weren't aware before of how many pages even simple bills are doesn't mean that this one is overly long! They aren't hiding anything - the bill's been online for MONTHS, you doofus!
And no, there are no death panels, or anything like them, in the bill. All kinds of non-partisan groups have debunked that talking point. If you don't KNOW that fact, it's only because you are proactively TRYING to remain ignorant on this topic!
The gov't IS NOT going to control the healthcare system with this bill. Again, if you believe that it will, it can ONLY be because you haven't WANTED to know the truth about this bill.
And that willingness to believe nonsense teamed with your unwillingness to learn the facts makes you a troll.
Go away, troll. Palin is NOT a fair person with respect for the truth!
The bill is over 2700 pages long and includes formation of health care commissions, mandatory requirements on small businesses and increased taxation. There are targeted $500 billion in cuts from Medicare probably to be obtained through rationing health services. Eventually illegals will be eventually entitled to gov't health care through comprehensive immigration reform.
Of course you rich liberal trolls, will have your own doctors, will have access to any specialist, and be able to afford any procedures deemed necessary. The middle and lower classes in American society will experience rationing of health care, which will be determined by gov't bureaucrats and not medical personnel. Good luck to all of you. You'll need it.
She is an amazing buffoon....