Since when is a partisan comment to the LA Times a legal opinion? I hate to inform you, but liberals can be just as wacky as conservatives. This one is almost too obvious..

There is a BIG difference between a PLAN and a CARRIER.

CARRIERS offer different PLANS. Duh.

As a pro-choice libertarian, I believe a free market in health insurance -- which has not existed since the New Deal -- would (and should) offer plans both with and without abortion coverage. They could be the exact same plans, as long as they comprised different pools.

We have too many people on BOTH sides of the abortion issue trying to impose their values on everyone else. I see nothing in Stupak's amendment seeking to bar COMPANIES who insure abortions. It says "plan"

And, Mr. Noah, that is precisely why private plans SHOULD be superior to government plans, simply because governments must oblige certain individual rights.

Nothing in Stupak's proposal suggests any such threat to private insurance of abortions -- except to the leftwing equivalents of GOP Death Panels ... if we simply know what the word "plan" means.

http://PoliticallyHomeless.net
"Fed up with both political parties"

mikehihn:

I see nothing in Stupak's amendment seeking to bar COMPANIES who insure abortions. It says "plan".

This is a straw man. Noah did not claim that companies would be barred by Stupak's amendment.

mikehihn:

Nothing in Stupak's proposal suggests any such threat to private insurance of abortions

The Stupak amendment states "No funds authorized under this Act … may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan." Since poor people will receive federal subsidies that they can use to purchase private plans, Stupak's amendment would prohibit these individuals from purchasing private plans that cover abortions.

Rep Stupak has been upfront that this is his intent. In an interview with The Hill newspaper, Rep Stupak stated:

Just as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) does not provide plans that cover abortion services, nor should the plans for individuals who enter into the public option or receive federal subsidies for healthcare cover abortions. They are free to purchase a supplemental plan or pay for these services with their own money should they so choose.

ClaimsAdjuster:

mikehihn:

I see nothing in Stupak's amendment seeking to bar COMPANIES who insure abortions. It says "plan".

This is a straw man. Noah did not claim that companies would be barred by Stupak's amendment.

Look again. He quotes the head of NARAL as his source ... which was my entire point.

"Stupak is basically saying you cannot even participate in the exchange unless your plan does not cover abortion," Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told the Los Angeles Times. "

Aetna can participate, with PLANS that cover abortion. To further claify Noah's obviously false conclusion, he goes on to state that Focus on The Family buys their insurance from a COMPANY that covers abortions ... so we have all kinds of liberals running off in hysteria, because the confuse a plan with a company -- thus no different than the GOP Death Panels.

"Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees doesn't include abortion coverage—and I'm assuming it doesn't—the organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that funds abortions,"

See the confusion here? Both yours and Noah's?

mikehihn:

Nothing in Stupak's proposal suggests any such threat to private insurance of abortions

ClaimsAdjuster:

Rep Stupak has been upfront that this is his intent. In an interview with The Hill newspaper

Uhhhhh, "nothing in his proposal...", speaking again of strawmen.

You need to show where his PROPOSAL bans companies instead of plan -- can you, or not? You've just repeated my own quote (of his proposal) which says exactly the opposite!!!

That's the primary reason my blog is anti-partisan. The majority of Americans are now non-partisan, and only 26% partisan to either party (Zogby Poll) .... wingnuts have become the loudest voices in both parties.

http://PoliticallyHomeless.net

mikehihn:

You need to show where his PROPOSAL bans companies instead of plan

No, I don't need to show that at all since neither Noah nor NARAL said anything about banning companies. As Stupak pointed out in the Hill, his purpose is to stop private companies that participate in the individual exchange from offering abortion services to consumers who are receiving health care subsidies:

Stupak:

Just as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) does not provide plans that cover abortion services, nor should the plans for individuals who enter into the public option or receive federal subsidies for healthcare cover abortions. They are free to purchase a supplemental plan or pay for these services with their own money should they so choose.

Your non-partisan claim is bogus: you are a Republican in drag.

ClaimsAdjuster:

mikehihn:

You need to show where his PROPOSAL bans companies instead of plan

No, I don't need to show that at all since neither Noah nor NARAL said anything about banning companies.

1) I just quoted NARAL, so you're still wrong.

2) You said his PROPOSAL bans companies, so you need to quote his PROPOSAL .

Your quote is useless because it confirms MY point that all he does if clarify no federal funding of abortions -- which has been law for only 33 years now.

ClaimsAdjuster:

Your non-partisan claim is bogus: you are a Republican in drag.

Both NARAL and Noah claim that companies wouid be banned. And your quote from the Hill simply confirms they are both wrong on that. If people are free to buy abortion coverage with their own money, where does NARAL (and you) think they will buy it -- Wal-Mart?

No, I will NOT quite NARAL again.