[GeneV]

Romney is not going to end "Obamacare". He is going to tweak it and turn it into "Romneycare". He said so today. From a Fox story..

With all due respect, "tweaking" is not a fair description of what he said. He has previously said that he will repeal Obamacare on day one. Now, for the first time, he has listed two parts he likes (which he previously did not like) and added

"I say we're going to replace Obamacare," "And I'm replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people."

In Massachusetts, his plan had a lot more similarities to Obamacare than that. If he really were interested in "tweaking" it to be like Massachusetts, he would not need to repeal it. Like every other plan from Romney, we know very little about this replacement.

[boriscleto]

Romney is not going to end "Obamacare". He is going to tweak it and turn it into "Romneycare". He said so today. From a Fox story..

On health care, Romney said Sunday he wants to keep parts of the health care overhaul spearheaded by President Obama. Though Romney vows to repeal the law, he said: "I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform."

Romney said: "There are a number of things that I like" in the law. The Republican presidential nominee said he wants to make sure people with pre-existing conditions can still have guaranteed coverage. And he said he wants to make sure young people can stay on their parents' plan "up to whatever age they might like" -- currently, that age is 26.

Read more: Romney, Ryan sound bipartisan tone on taxes, health care | Fox News

But since RMoney will say anything he thinks will get him elected we don't really know what he'll do.

Daily Kos: Now Romney hopes activist judges will set abortion policy for him

[GeneV]

But since RMoney will say anything he thinks will get him elected we don't really know what he'll do.

Daily Kos: Now Romney hopes activist judges will set abortion policy for him

Wait, he was flipping and flopping before the day was through. He first made statements about liking these provisions, and then

A few hours later, the Romney campaign released a statement reversing Romney’s position on “Meet the Press.” The statement said:
“In reference to how Romney would deal with those with preexisting conditions and young adults who want to remain on their parents’ plans, a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.”

Why does anyone pay attention to the wind that passes across his lips?

How many times has he said something only to have his campaign take it back?

[Nesster]

I understand that his long form birth certificate has 8 different times of birth... see, each time he came out he thought better of it and went back in... until the doctors forced him to stay born. Now Romney insists that he is born only because he is legally required to be, and he supports existing legistlation on this matter.

This is not to say he isn't a person, nor a natural born citizen of the United States. His personhood began when his parents did something he'd rather not think about, or, 3 years later when he finally gave up his ceremonial fetus title.

[boriscleto]

I understand that his long form birth certificate has 8 different times of birth... see, each time he came out he thought better of it and went back in... until the doctors forced him to stay born. Now Romney insists that he is born only because he is legally required to be, and he supports existing legistlation on this matter.

This is not to say he isn't a person, nor a natural born citizen of the United States. His personhood began when his parents did something he'd rather not think about, or, 3 years later when he finally gave up his ceremonial fetus title.

So when he made that big show of not enrolling in Medicare earlier this year it was all for nothing since he's only 62 and not 65?

[jeffkrol]

His personhood began when his parents did something he'd rather not think about,

Sure would muddy "birther issues"...........

[graphicgr8s]

Didn't you get banned from pentaxforums before? Why are you back?


.

I came back mostly to warn about what was going on whatanother site that could happen here. Something that could happen to any site.

Actually I was never banned from PF. I left of on my own volition.
Huh?
You don't know.....
Oh. You don't want people to know eh?
OK Go look it up in the dictionary. I'll wait.
Oh, you don't have a dictionary? Look it up online.
Where would I look it up? Just google it.
You don't know how to spell google?

G
O
O
G
L
E
Got it?

[graphicgr8s]

Here is my question (and this is what I do not understand about the republican platform). And this is an honest question (I am not trying to troll or anything).

By allowing women easier access to contraceptives, it is likely that there will be fewer unplanned pregnancies my making contraceptives less expensive for users (at least that is the goal). If there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, I presume there would be fewer abortions. The political capital to abolish abortion does not exist in Washington. The result is that Obama's plan will lead to fewer abortions (if everything works as planned). Romney would probably decrease sex education and worsen access to contraceptives (perhaps increasing the number of abortions), and might try and make abortion illegal (which will not work because the political capital is not there).

It seems to me that the choice is between voting based on ideology, or practical results (in which Obama will probably decrease the number of abortions more than Romney...in my opinion).

If we are going to force insurance companies to provide contraceptives to curtail unwanted pregnancies why not pay for condoms?

Since we are going to pay for women to NOT have babies why not pay for those that CAN'T have children to have fertility treatments like IVF? My little guy cost 30 large with no guarantee of success. Why don't we force payment for that also? Or is this a one way street?

[GeneV]

If we are going to force insurance companies to provide contraceptives to curtail unwanted pregnancies why not pay for condoms?

Since we are going to pay for women to NOT have babies why not pay for those that CAN'T have children to have fertility treatments like IVF? My little guy cost 30 large with no guarantee of success. Why don't we force payment for that also? Or is this a one way street?

Actually, most insurance will pay for fertility treatment, no questions asked. They will pay for a difficult birth as well.

Paying for condoms would save lots of health care dollars. Why not? In addition to other human concerns, one AIDS case avoided pays for the care of dozens others.

[kxr4trids]

You've gotta hold it in your lungs longer, George

[graphicgr8s]

Actually, most insurance will pay for fertility treatment, no questions asked. They will pay for a difficult birth as well.

Paying for condoms would save lots of health care dollars. Why not? In addition to other human concerns, one AIDS case avoided pays for the care of dozens others.

Actually they will pay up to IUI. Most do not cover IVF. IUI is about $700-1000 per attempt. IVF is north of $25,000. Believe me I got a hell of an education 4 years ago. In Britain it is "free" and you can try one time per year. Fact is though most people there either finally conceive naturally or give up.
We went to a clinic that had a 64% rate which is pretty darn good. Most are 50-50. And yes, if it fails you still pay.

[JohnInIndy]

Not sure about the libs being smart enough but when I eat out I specifically tell them I don't want salt on my food. I am perfectly capable of making my own decision about things in my life. I sure don't need nor want government to make it for me.

You aren't smart enough to make the decision for yourself. At least that's what NYC thinks.

Well you could always buy 2 of the smaller size.I would ask how dumb can they really be but I am afraid they may show us.

NEW YORK (AP) — New York City's Board of Health opened up a new, experimental front in the war on obesity Thursday, passing a rule banning sales of big sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries.
The regulation, which was proposed in the spring by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and approved by panel of health experts after several months of review, puts a 16-ounce size limit on cups and bottles of non-diet soda, sweetened teas, and other calorie-packed beverages.
The ban will apply in fast-food joints, movie houses and Broadway theaters, workplace cafeterias, and most other places selling prepared food.
It doesn't cover beverages sold in supermarkets or most convenience stores.
The restaurant and beverage industries have assailed the plan as misguided. They say the city's health experts are exaggerating the role sugary beverages have played in making Americans fat.
One board member, Dr. Sixto R. Caro, abstained from voting. The other eight board members voted yes.
"I am still skeptical. . This is not comprehensive enough," said Caro, a doctor of internal medicine who practices in Brooklyn and Manhattan.
Some New Yorkers have also ridiculed the rule as a gross government intrusion and tens of thousands signed a petition, circulated by the industry, voicing their opposition.
The unprecedented regulation would follow other ambitious health moves on Bloomberg's watch.
Some have proven to be national pacesetters, such as making chain restaurants post calorie counts prominently on their menus; McDonald's announced Wednesday that it would start displaying the information nationwide next week, before a federal requirement that could force all major chains to do so next year.
New York City also has barred artificial trans fats from restaurant food and taken aggressive steps to discourage smoking. Starting this month, dozens of city hospitals are asking mothers of newborns to listen to talks about why they should breast-feed instead of using formula.
Bloomberg and other advocates for the soda plan — who include a roster of doctors and such food figures as chef Jamie Oliver — see it as another pioneering step for public health.
After Thursday's vote, Bloomberg's official Twitter feed tweeted: "NYC's new sugary drink policy is the single biggest step any gov't has taken to curb (hash)obesity. It will help save lives."
They say the proposal strikes at a leading cause of obesity simply by giving people a built-in reason to stop at 16 ounces: 200 calories, if it's a regular Coke, compared to 240 in a 20-ounce size. For someone who drinks a soda a day, the difference amounts to 14,600 calories a year, or the equivalent of 70 Hershey bars, enough to add about four pounds of fat to a person's body.
Beyond the numbers, some doctors and nutrition experts say the proposal starts a conversation that could change attitudes toward overeating. While there are many factors in obesity, "ultimately it does come down to culture, and it comes down to taking some first steps," said Dr. Jeffrey Mechanick, a Mount Sinai School of Medicine professor who has studied the effect of government regulation on the obesity epidemic.
Soda makers and sellers say the plan unfairly singles out soft drinks as culprits for the nation's fat problem, represents an overweening government effort to regulate behavior and is so patchy as to be pointless. Because of the web of who regulates what, it would affect a belly-buster regular soda sold at a sports arena but not a 7-Eleven Big Gulp, for instance.
An average New Yorker goes to the movies about four times per year and buys concessions only twice, said Sun Dee Larson, a spokeswoman for the AMC Theatres chain.
"We firmly believe the choices made during the other 363 days have a much greater impact on public health," she said in a statement.
Thursday's vote is unlikely to be the final word on the proposal.
A soft-drink industry sponsored group called New Yorkers for Beverage Choices — which says it has gathered more than 250,000 signatures on petitions opposing the soda plan — is considering a lawsuit and exploring legislative options for challenging the plan.
"This is not the end," Eliot Hoff, a spokesman for the group, said in a written statement. "We will continue to voice our opposition to this ban and fight for the right of New Yorkers to make their own choices. And we will stand with the business owners who will be hurt by these arbitrary limitations."
It's not clear what legislative routes there may be: City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said Wednesday she's not interested in trying to block the expected health board vote, though she has said she isn't a fan of the soda idea.
The rule wouldn't apply to lower-calorie drinks, such as water or diet soda, or to alcoholic beverages or drinks that are more than half milk or 70 percent, unsweetened juice.
Enforcement would be conducted by an existing corps of city restaurant inspectors. A violation would lead to a $200 fine.

[GeneV]

Actually they will pay up to IUI. Most do not cover IVF. IUI is about $700-1000 per attempt. IVF is north of $25,000. Believe me I got a hell of an education 4 years ago. In Britain it is "free" and you can try one time per year. Fact is though most people there either finally conceive naturally or give up.
We went to a clinic that had a 64% rate which is pretty darn good. Most are 50-50. And yes, if it fails you still pay.

I have personal experience with this as well, though it was in the 1980s and did not involve IVF.

[jsherman999]

I came back mostly to warn about what was going on whatanother site that could happen here. Something that could happen to any site.

Actually I was never banned from PF. I left of on my own volition.
Huh?
You don't know.....
Oh. You don't want people to know eh?
OK Go look it up in the dictionary. I'll wait.
Oh, you don't have a dictionary? Look it up online.
Where would I look it up? Just google it.
You don't know how to spell google?

G
O
O
G
L
E
Got it?

Well, that was... interesting.



.

[ihasa]

Best just to move on, I think.