I posted the cop notes some time ago, and forgot to tell anyone.
Also, put up a picture from an accident this morning that a reader sent in. I would like to encourage everyone to send in pictures. And a little information if you can.
We had a truck run off the road and hit a pole.Three police cars responded. Have not yet found out what the situation is, but I will let you know soon.
Hospital groundbreaking (again) is going to be held at 12:30 at the new site. Ill be there.
Tonight is a concert at Cowley.
Good debates on topics yesterday. Very civilized.
not sure quite where to put this, jj. maybe off topic, but, these things need to be discussed. Too much of the public hasn't heard this.
ReplyDeleteSpeaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
For those who may have forgotten who we're dealing with. I tell you these people are dishonest. I mean if that's what the public wants then fine. But, let's not keep it secret and undiscussed in an effort to sneak it in under the radar.
Pls keep in mind this in off Minority Leader Boenher's website. He could get in BIG trouble for saying this if it was not true. It's true. If you care to read.
Don't expect CNn, CBs, aBC, or brand x to tell you. (pun intended)
Well, the report cites page 110, which is vague and unclear as to what it means.
ReplyDeleteBUT, page 109 specifically says abortion coverage is prohibited.
soooooooooooo i dunno.
(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
8 MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
9 (1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
10 The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
11 recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
12 may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
13 the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
14 as part of the essential benefits package and the
15 Commissioner may not require such services for
16 qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
17 Health Insurance Exchange.
18 (2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY
19 PLAN.—In the case of a qualified health benefits
20 plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under
21 this Act from providing coverage of services de22
scribed in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the
23 QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such
24 coverage is provided.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.
ReplyDelete>>
I read this. The whole section does not mention abortion at all, So i dont know where he is getting this. "Insurance Rating Rules" is the heading, but ... says nothing like what he says it says.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3962ih.txt.pdf
is the link to the entire bill
I'm too lazy to read all that, but if the Dems can find a way to make abortions covered, I'm sure they will try. I like that fact that people are watching it closely so it will be brought to the public's attention if they do try it.
ReplyDeleteI'm too lazy to read all that
ReplyDeleteThat is just want the pubs are hoping to hear. They like it when people follow without checking their facts.
exactly. its not just the dems who hope you are not paying attention and not reading.
ReplyDeletethe pubs can gain a lot from you not reading it as well.
ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
ReplyDelete8 MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.—
---------------------------------
It says apart of MINIMUM benefits package. Is MINIMUM the key word there? Is there another package?
lemee see..page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...it's gonna be a long weekend. :)
ReplyDeleteOK, I just read page 110...here is some of it. It's unclear JJ? Really? Pretty clear to me.
ReplyDelete9 (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND-
10 ING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in
11 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
12 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
13 the Department of Health and Human Services
14 is not permitted, based on the law as in effect
15 as of the date that is 6 months before the be16
ginning of the plan year involved.
17 (B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUND-
18 ING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in
19 this subparagraph are abortions for which the
20 expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for
21 the Department of Health and Human Services
22 is permitted, based on the law as in effect as
23 of the date that is 6 months before the begin
24 ning of the plan year involved.
Here is where it is talking about it is allowed. The other specifically said 'minimum benefits'. It's not hard for me to tell what it means. Why did you choose to ignore it? The insurance rating has to do with what classification you fall under whether you are eligible or not. It's not that hard if you read it.
oh, forgot a paragraph on page 110. This was directly above the part I just posted...
ReplyDelete(3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSUR
2 ANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option
3 shall provide coverage for services described in para
4 graph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed
5 as preventing the public health insurance option
6 from providing for or prohibiting coverage of serv
7 ices described in paragraph (4)(A).
8
JJ,
ReplyDeleteIf you read a few lines up in page 110, to line 1-7, you'll see this:
1 (3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
Pay attention to line 4-7, Nothing in this act prevents the Public Health Insurance (Public option) from providing or prohibiting coverage for paragraph 4a. Paragraph 4a is titled ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED. I'm not a legal scholar, but to me, it looks like the act (bill) has the ability to provide funding, or not provide funding, if they want to.
The section referred above on page 109 refers to the Essentials package, which might mean the bare necessity package. If you buy "options", it may have a option that would cover abortions.
It says on p 109 abortion is not covered. the writing on page 110 does not reverse that.
ReplyDeletei dont think its clear at all.
republicans are against it so they will interpret it as they like, dems want it, and they do the same
THAT is my point :)
The paragraphs 4A and B, do not mention abortion at all. it is vague as to what that applies to.
but, you still have not explained away P 109 where it says abortion will NOT be covered.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not
ReplyDelete11 recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary
12 may not adopt in standards under section 224(b),
13 the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B)
14 as part of the essential benefits package and the
15 Commissioner may not require such services for
16 qualified health benefits plans to participate in the
17 Health Insurance Exchange.
_____________________
In legalese, which I used to speak rather fluently, there is a huge difference between "may not" and "shall not". "may not" means they have a choice. "shall not" means they don't.
On page 109 It says it won't be covered as a part of MINIMUM benefits package. 109 doesn't out do 110!
ReplyDeleteWhich bill are you reading?
ReplyDeletePage 110, Line 8-16, This is Para 4A
Page 110, Line 17-24 This is Para 4B
Seems pretty plain to me. Both Titles have the word ABORTION in them.
Paragraph 1 says the Committee or the HHS Secretary cannot provide services from Paragraph 4A or 4B in the Essentials Plan. This would be your Prohibiting Abortion plan. But if you read further, Paragraphs 2,3, and 4, the committee and HHS secratary are not prohibited from providing coverage.
Get your I want PUBLIC OPTION to pass glasses off and you can read it better!!
ReplyDeleteTold you he was liberal.
ReplyDeleteCould be
ReplyDeleteMy point was, republican supporters were already saying it definitely postiively absolutely would pay for abortions
My only point is, that it does not say that.,
It does say it SHALL not on the previous page.
so .. only time will tell what it really means i guess.
do insurance companies currently pay for abotions?
This is Nancy Pelosi's bill. Do you think she wouldn't leave a loop hole in there?
ReplyDeleteIt's sad your willing to look past it because you WANT it to pass so bad. You use to be a little more neutral.
how can you say page 110 out does page 109.
ReplyDeleteit looks like there are places now where federal funds are available for abortions ..
most are not
im just looking at what it actually says without any shading of politics.
I do want health care reform
i care about helping people.
thats the bottom line.
republicans still have not offered any alternative except to continue to give insurance companies and the medical industry a monopoly
May not, shall not. Just shows how sloppily the bill has been written. SG is right. May not is a choice, Shall not is an order not to be broken. I write policies for a company, and I have to be carefull when I use such phases.
ReplyDeleteI heard a funny joke on Sponge Bob yesterday:
ReplyDeletePatrick hurt his butt and Sponge Bob was urging him to go to the Dr.
Patrick says "I can't go to the Dr. My job doesn't have health insurance coverage!"
Sponge Bob says "What job?"
Patrick says "Exactly!"
It's sad your willing to look past it because you WANT it to pass so bad. You use to be a little more neutral.
ReplyDelete>
No, i busted a small piece of republican rhetoric earlier on this post.
and hard core republicans are ganging up on me.
politics as usual.
Im interested in truth.
show me the actual wordage where it says abortions are covered..
the dems might try to sneak it through a loophole, but you still have to have it in writing somewhere ..
republicans still have not offered any alternative
ReplyDeleteWell, actually they have. BD had a whole list of different proposals. They never got out of committee. Most of them were short. They have one out there now that is 200 some pages long.
Don't say the Repubs are the only ones protecting the Insurance co. If they would allow companies to go across state lines, 2 things would happen. Some insurance companies would fail, because they couldn't compete, and prices would go down because they would have to compete. I don't think that option is in the bill. Wouldn't want an insurance companies to have to lower prices; that would conflict with the public option.
This whole thing is, what is the word, a boondoggle?
You didn't bust anything. And I'm not a hardcore Republican. I'm an American that doesn't beleive my tax $$ should pay for abortion.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is in writing, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not there. I'm sure Rep. Boehner understands it a little better than you do.
May not, shall not. Just shows how sloppily the bill has been written. SG is right. May not is a choice, Shall not is an order not to be broken. I write policies for a company, and I have to be carefull when I use such phases.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
They write these things this way on purpose.
Republican rhetoric? We just pointed out to you that you can't read very well. I bet if we got an actual lawyer on this blog to explain it you in real world terms, you would crap your pants.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the loophole applies to victims of rape or incest, or if the mother's health is at risk?
ReplyDeleteThose are the only reasons that my tax money should pay for an abortion IMHO.
It looks like Obama, Pelosi, and company are determined to ram this down our throats (or up somewhere else) even though it will mean their defeat in the next elections. What a legacy they will have... moving us that much closer to communism.
Well i do agree that the dems do not have our best interests at heart.
ReplyDeleteJust saying the pubs dont either.
I dont really even know what the current practice is as far as insurance companies paying for abortions.
The writing yall have shown does not say what you say it says. THats my only point.
I would say that it would not surprise me if dems did try to push that through.
Just remember, neither the dems nor the pubs have your interests in mind in any of this.
Ahhhh...The sound of freedom of speech. Listen...refreshing. Others want it another way. I prefer to live in the land of the free.
ReplyDelete"We are going to fundamentally change America." -Barack Obama
You may be right DQ. I would just add that the pubs also do not really want freedom either.
ReplyDeleteIf either side ever gets absolute control, we will be in a real mess.
I think both sides are dangerous :)
im going to write more about that later
What do you make of the shooter in Texas being a Muslim? Do you think it is time to prohibit Muslims from serving in the military while we are at war with Muslim countries?
ReplyDeleteThey tried that with the japs during WWII.
ReplyDeleteThey still do not know if he was a muslim. Muslim groups in the u.s. are condeming the act, which is good.
Shouldnt we at least find out if it was part of a muslim plot first? before we go locking them up?
@7:20 p.m. No. How would you enforce it? Let's be clear, all Muslims don't fly planes into buildings and shoot innocent people. I mean, come on. For that matter, all Christians aren't christian (if you know what I mean). All lawyers aren't lawyers, etc. You asked. I just think you ought to treat everybody equal up to and until they prove that you must treat them differently.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, this is America. I think we do well to remember the New Colossus: "..."Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!""
Not on this subject but I see Newscow is offering Tee shirts and trying to capitalize on the streaker that ran through the Curry field. Great signals to our young that this kid is going to be a hero by running naked in front of hundreds of people. I am discusted with Newscow for this!
ReplyDeleteNewscow offering T-shirts is degrading to our community to make this kid into an idol for doing something as he did. Now we will have streakers everywhere. Watch out, Ethel, here he comes....oops, there he goes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with DD on remembering this country was founded on New Colossus, and we cannot condemn all Muslims. We have some right here in Cowley who are the sweetest people you would want to meet. The husband became an American citizen fours years ago, the wife is this month.
Outlawing the Muslims would be saying since our "most wanted" is made up of a higher precentage of Hispanics, we must outlaw them, too. It won't work, but we must enforce our laws for everyone.
Another good example of hate, singling out a group because the shooter is muslim. Just like after 9/11...
ReplyDeleteYea Streaker!!! Get your T-Shirts today . Lighten up people and get a sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing funny about a naked juvenile running through a crowd laden with children! If are not promoting this without looking for personal finacial gain you need to donate the proceeds to a Big Brothers Big Sisters group! If you think this is "COOL" you are sadly mistaken! How do you explain this to a 5 year old little girl?
ReplyDeleteNews Cow has said they will donate to a childrens charity.
ReplyDeleteLighten up.
You say to the little girl, "All boys have those." And mommy and daddy want you to keep your private parts covered." "He shouldn't have done that, and I bet he's gonna be in big trouble." Nakedness does not equal sex. Kids see it all day on the beach in most other parts of the world. I don't think it has damaged them.
If people were more concerned with what their kids watch on TV, the video games they play, music they listen to, or what they wear (or don't wear), to school, the world would be a much better place.
No what Newscow said was they were donating a dollar from every tee shirt sold to the kids defense or fines. I DON'T see that as a charity. He should have to work off what it cost to get him out of trouble. THAT IS NOT A CHARITY. And I will not lighten up on this tee shirt situation. News cow to me is showing bad judgement and lack of social responsiblity. There is a huge difference between art and some kid showing his stuff at a ball game. Don't even compare them. As far as seeing nakedness on a beach, my children never did, I didn't take them to such places. And I did watch what they saw on TV. And what they wore to school. THAT is what the problem is with society. They are too lax on what their children do and say and how they act. Young ones are not respectful to their elders or police. I have contact with some of these children on a daily basis and some have no respect for authority. Let alone know when to keep their clothes on.
ReplyDeleteBelow is straight from the Newscow Website:
ReplyDelete"We've have discussed donating a percentage of the proceeds and intend to do that so long as we sell enough to cover our expenses. If and when we donate we'll let you know where the money went and how much was given.
The idea would be to give to a cause in both Winfield and Ark City."
I DON"T KNOW where YOU got YOUR information from, BUT it appears to be WRONG. Why would he need a defense fund anyways? It's a misdemeanor, not a felony.
Sounds like to me, your household was very close to being communistic. Controlling everything your child does. Now that is scary. How else are ever going to learn from mistakes if they aren't allowed to make any?
Yea children raised with an iron fist are more likely to rebel when they get older. Kinda like catholic school children.
ReplyDeletePoor taste is poor taste, I don't care what spin you put on it to make it ok. And I have talked to many other who think the same thing I do.
ReplyDeleteI DON"T KNOW where YOU got YOUR information from, BUT it appears to be WRONG.
ReplyDelete********************************************
Taken from Newscow Weekly Live Blog:
NewsCow (Shane): A dollar from every shirt we sell will go to help the streaker with his legal fees.
Friday November 6, 2009 2:53 NewsCow (Shane)
2:54 NewsCow (Shane): Just returned an email from the kid's dad.
**********************************************
Think again November 7, 2009 1:41 PM. This is a copy and paste directly from the NEWSCOW weekly LIVE BLOG. If you want to check it out yourself go ahead. Is the kid going to benifit from his little fiasco? Check YOUR facts!
Sounds like to me, your household was very close to being communistic. Controlling everything your child does. Now that is scary. How else are ever going to learn from mistakes if they aren't allowed to make any?
ReplyDeleteChildren make mistakes, all children, but we don't have to make a legend of them when they do. We can let them know what they did was in bad taste or illegal and hope they do learn from it, and hope the mature adults in the community do too. But when you have the streaker tee that will add fame to his childs ill deeds,especially to other children, that is really messed up.