Dems: 'We have the votes now' to pass health care refrom

I have no problem throwing my money into the pot for the good of the commons. I have a very big problem, however, being forced to throw my money into the profit pot of the insurance industry. Let's not muddy the waters here, corporatecrats. This bill hands it all away to the insurance industry. As I read in an inciteful comment at another site: the two main thrusts of the bill are the public mandate and no denial for pre-existing conditions. So let's see, it boils down to 1)We are being forced to become customers of a for profit industry and 2)they must allow us to patronize them.

By the way, according to the bill, an insurance company can STILL DENY someone for a pre-existing condition, but they must pay a fine if they do. Hmmm, let's see, I think I'd trade paying a few small fines in exchange for 30,000,000 new customers.

I say its really nice of Mr. Stupak to fight so hard to deny a woman's right to privacy and a right to spend her own money however she sees fit--while keeping names of secret allies in his pocket and paying a measly $600 a month in rent for an apartment in Georgetown and keeping the names of who is subsidizing his rent secret and/or hiding his tax forms and rent checks because he has a constitutional right to privacy.

That and to me--blatantly violating the written text of the First Amendment that requires a separation of church and state by railroading government legislation and demanding an executive order to enforce your own religious beliefs on everyone else while also receiving rent subsidies from a church is a hell of a lot worse and more criminal than worrying about how some woman you don't even know will choose to exercise her legal 14th Amendment right to privacy as given to her by the Supreme Court in 1973 to say its really none of your damn business or anyone else's for that matter if she chooses have a medical procedure done safely and by a licensed doctor. (and even his logic is bogus because it takes millions more tax payer dollars to pay for the birth, the TANF funds, the child's education, and the salary of the social workers and family court judges and lawyers who will most likely be involved at some point in this child's life trying to "protect them" from their mother or force their biological father to pay child support or warehousing the child somewhere until they age out of the foster care system--and you can bet that Mr. Stupak will vote down every request for funding for ANY of those programs while arguing that he said NO because women just keep having more and more kids to get a government handout don't ya know)

Thanks for nothing, dems.

To clarify, the executive order will not change current law. It will only preserve and enforce the Hyde amendment.