But I will not back any candidate who is against either abortion (which right women do have, albeit somewhat tenuously) or gay rights (which rights gays do not have, but ought to) in precisely the same way I will not support a candidate who thinks women shouldn’t have the right to vote (there are some), or that women and minorities should not have wage parity.
I contest your assertion that women will achieve wage parity, job access parity, social parity, and freedom from gendered violence in a society that does not endorse abortion or gay rights.
Wake up and smell the hummus, there are no societies like you are describing.
If I am not for the rights of all people to be equal, how could I then expect them to support mine?

Whether you’re for or against federal efforts to help people buy health insurance, you should know that the reform bill before the Senate would mandate a healthcare system that is definitely “not free.”

What most of us know about the Democratic bill is that it requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance. What most of us don’t know is that it requires us to buy a minimum level of insurance approved by the federal government, and forces health plans and providers to share our personal health information with the federal government and other entities.

If this bill becomes law, we could each be assigned a national beneficiary ID number or card (possibly an electronic device). And our personal health information will flow electronically to the US secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) – and many others – without our consent.

Sound farfetched? Buried in the Senate bill’s 2,074 pages are provisions that actually permit and foster such things. Freedom and privacy are often lost in the fine print – which is why we’ve been studying the Senate bill since it was released Nov. 19 to help uncover the facts. Here are five highly invasive provisions Americans should know:

1. Mandatory insurance

Bill text: “Sec. 1501. Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage…. An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.”

Translation: Uncle Sam will now serve as your national insurance agent and force you to buy “minimum essential coverage” – or else you’ll have to pay an annual fine.

However, what Congress considers “minimum essential coverage” and “essential health benefits requirements” includes comprehensive coverage that many neither need nor want. Plus, those who prefer to carry catastrophic-only coverage won’t have a free range of options for such coverage.

Bottom line: In a free society, the government should not force citizens to buy any product nor should the government mandate citizens’ level of health-insurance coverage.

Rather than imposing penalties to coerce people into government-sanctioned health insurance, Congress should offer incentives to help those who wish to buy insurance but find it unaffordable.

Congress could allow everyone to deduct the full cost of health insurance (and provide tax credits for those with no tax liability), while offering assistance to those who can’t afford insurance and subsidize high-risk pools for those with preexisting conditions.

Helping those in need is a much better way to reform our nation’s healthcare system than overhauling the entire system and putting Big Brother in charge of deciding what is acceptable coverage for nearly every American.

2. Electronic data exchanges

Bill text: “Sec. 1104. Administrative Simplification…. (h) Compliance. – (1) Health Plan Certification. – (A) Eligibility for a Health Plan, Health Claim Status, Electronic Funds Transfers, Health Care Payment and Remittance Advice. – Not later than December 31, 2013, a health plan shall file a statement with the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary may require, certifying that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable standards (as described under paragraph (7) of section 1171) and associated operating rules (as described under paragraph (9) of such section) for electronic funds transfers, eligibility for a health plan, health claim status, and health care payment and remittance advice, respectively.”

Translation: Requiring everyone to buy federally sanctioned health insurance, and then forcing qualified plans to comply with Administrative Simplification requirements, provides the government and health industry with power they would not be able to exercise in a free market.

Administrative Simplification rules are a product of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. They lay the foundation for a nationally linked database of personal health information. A federal “Nationwide Health Information Network” (NHIN) is well under way in the United States, without assurances that individuals will control their personal health data.

Bottom line: Americans should be able to contract privately with the insurance companies of their choice. Patients should be able to decide whether to have electronic or paper medical records, and not have the government require electronic records, which are then included in a nationally linked database.

3. Real-time health and financial data

Bill text: “Sec. 1104. Administrative Simplification…. (4) Requirements for Financial and Administrative Transactions. – (A) In General. – The standards and associated operating rules adopted by the Secretary shall – (i) to the extent feasible and appropriate, enable determination of an individual’s eligibility and financial responsibility for specific services prior to or at the point of care…. (i) Eligibility for a Health Plan and Health Claims Status. – The set of operating rules for eligibility for a health plan and health claim status transactions shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2011, in a manner ensuring that such operating rules are effective not later than January 1, 2013, and may allow for the use of a machine readable identification card.”

Translation: Administrative Simplification rules are being expanded to gather real-time financial and health data on individuals through a tracking ID, possibly a “machine readable” ID card (electronic device).

Bottom line: Moving forward with real-time data collection without an ethical patient consent provision means everyone loses their health-privacy rights. Congress needs to enact strong patient consent provisions for all health data, especially data collected “real-time.”

4. Health data network

Bill text: “Sec. 6301. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.… (f) Building Data for Research. – The Secretary shall provide for the coordination of relevant Federal health programs to build data capacity for comparative clinical effectiveness research, including the development and use of clinical registries and health outcomes research data networks, in order to develop and maintain a comprehensive, interoperable data network to collect, link, and analyze data on outcomes and effectiveness from multiple sources, including electronic health records.”

Translation: Your personal health information may soon be studied by government scientists. Washington is creating a new research center that plans to use patients’ electronic health records for conducting research and creating disease registries. The data network is comprehensive and includes use of electronic health records.

Bottom line: Federal funds should not be used to collect data electronically and conduct research on patients’ personal health information without their consent.

5. Personal health information

Bill text: “Sec. 6301. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research…. (B) Use of Data. – The [Patient-Centered Outcomes Research] Institute shall only use data provided to the Institute under subparagraph (A) in accordance with laws and regulations governing the release and use of such data, including applicable confidentiality and privacy standards.”

Translation: Think your health privacy is protected? It’s not. This language refers to “applicable confidentiality and privacy standards,” but HIPAA’s so-called privacy law permits individuals’ personal health information to be exchanged – for many broad purposes – without patients’ consent (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.502(a)(1)(ii) “Permitted uses and disclosures”).

Bottom line: Trust is a must for ensuring quality healthcare. Thus, as stated above, Congress needs to pass a strong, ethical patient consent law that ensures patients have control over the flow of their personal health information.

What about the consent of the governed?

All told, the national mandatory health-insurance bill puts the federal government in charge of individuals’ insurance choices and data privacy. This philosophy of governing is the opposite of America’s founding principle: consent of the governed.

Without health freedom and privacy rights, Congress is opening the door for many wrongs to be committed – all in the name of covering the uninsured.

I have bad news for you. A lot of people DO get that, it’s part of a strategy, and they aren’t right wingers. Do you have ANY idea how many former dems you Obamacrats have made leave the party?

When the party that was supposed to be for everyone, actually doesn’t represent them, and people start waking up, they realize that NEITHER party represents them. What are they to do? One option is to get the dem party back in control of dems, and get the Obamacrats OUT of power – by voting republicans in. It’s a way to get the party to listen to its REAL base.

Continuing to vote for a party which says it’s for you, but actually isn’t, doesn’t make sense. They don’t pay attention to the people, they just give lip service. Real dems are looking for leverage. Voting for a 3rd party might not cut it – so another option is to support the other major team. It’s trading some possible short-term suffering for longer-term re-alignment of the party.

I’m not going to let the dems NOT represent me, but scare me that the other side is NOT going to represent me. Neither one does. Why should I give continuing blind allegiance to one? At this point, it would feel like an abused woman syndrome.

I’m over it. I’m voting for whomever I feel like voting for. The dems no longer own me. I’m working for long-term benefits, not short-term lies that benefit no one but party insiders.

Keep up the thinking on your ownfest!

I remember when the right did that to the dems under Bush, including the literal locking out. It’s no better when the left does it than when the right does it. And repeating the talking point doesn’t make it true.

I’m am so tired of talking points, and I’m tired of the political games, and now that I think for myself, instead of listening to what the party tells me, I see oh-so-clearly now. And IMO, I see that you’re still caught up in the ideology, and missing what is right in front of you.

I would never support a liberal or conservative woman who would not fight for basic human rights for women, aka, Pelosi. Just because a woman is pro-life does not make her against equal pay for equal work. Except for the two issues I site, most women agree on what women need. There are very few flat-earth types that would fight for “a woman’s place is in the home.” I would assume we all think a woman’s place is in the house, senate or at least 50% of governor’s mansions (as the governor)!

Regardless of your attitude we cannot be all things to all people. I am talking about the utter abuse and verbal violence that both Hillary and Sarah Palin experienced. If you prefer to continue these divisive battles instead of making more money, getting promoted with the big boys, be my guest. If it’s ok with you to see a female candidate savaged which is a reflection on ALL women, I don’t know what to say to you. I do not. The only woman I would not support is another Nancy Pelosi who apparently has it in for women. I would support a conservative MAN over her. I’ve been there and seen enough.

Yes, Hillary was and continues to be MY first choice candidate, but if she is out of the running, YES I would vote for a Sarah Palin. I DID and I will. When these kinds of tactics are used against you (women), we have to fight fire with fire.

Take your own advise and stop listening to Keith Olbuttman and Bill Maher.

Stop the hatefest!

Beck is the most inclined toward the relabelling/mislabelling strategy. He works up anger in his audience while showing them where it should be properly directed.

most of the people who oppose Obama do not even listen to Rush.

Excellent point. I don’t listen to his program nor agree/disagree necessarily with his assertions.

In my view, the republicans are dodging their responsibility by being only critics. They’re cynically using anger to their own political advantage, while offering nothing themselves that might be objectively evaluated, and perhaps criticized. On healthcare reform, for example, they vote as a block, asserting that the entire effort is nothing but a boondoggle. Yet they also try their best to dodge debate that would turn to the specifics, and refuse to engage in the give and take discussion that is part of the normal legislative process. Meanwhile, they righteously state that they’ve had the answers all along, and that we could get down to them if only it weren’t for this sweeping healthcare reform nonsense. “Want to see our solutions? First we’ve got to get rid of these democrats, and dump anything they’re working on, then we’ll show them to you. We can’t now, because they won’t let us.” This applies not only to healthcare, but to a multitude of critical issues.

Of such pitches, I am highly sceptical.