Get the Facts and Decide – Health Care

MH900427703A LOT is coming out about Trump’s new H.R.1275 – World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017 (Not a joke. That is what it is called).

Again. I make no opinions or judgement. I post this to make it easier for people to get the facts and come to their own conclusions. This is a long one so I’m just going to post the very top part with a link to the full bill.

H.R.1275 – World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017
Sponsor: Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] (Introduced 03/01/2017)


To eliminate the individual and employer health coverage mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to expand beyond that Act the choices in obtaining and financing affordable health insurance coverage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


(a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “World’s Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017”.

(b) Purposes.—The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND EMPLOYER MANDATES UNDER ACA.—To eliminate mandates on individuals and employers, and other tax requirements, imposed under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

(2) PROVIDING STATES WITH ALTERNATIVE, AFFORDABLE COVERAGE OPTIONS.—To provide greater flexibility in providing States with options in making affordable health insurance coverage available by eliminating certain mandates under PPACA, while retaining essential consumer protections, by promoting health savings accounts to pay for such coverage and long-term care coverage, while permitting States to continue coverage as provided under PPACA.

(c) Table Of Contents.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; purposes; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

Sec. 101. Repeal of individual health insurance mandate.

Sec. 102. Repeal of employer health insurance mandate.

Sec. 103. Clarifying employer’s ability to reimburse employee premiums for purchase of individual health insurance coverage.

Sec. 121. Limiting application of requirements to consumer protections.

Sec. 122. Offering of basic health insurance; protection of assets from liability or attachment or seizure.

MH900316868Sec. 131. Health insurance tax benefit.

Sec. 132. Application of portion of unused tax credits by States for indigent health care.

Sec. 133. Medicaid option of enrollment under private plan and contribution to an HSA.

Sec. 201. Transition to non-deductible HSAs.

Sec. 202. Elimination of medical expense deduction.

Sec. 203. Treatment of HSA after death of account beneficiary.

Sec. 204. Treatment of concierge medicine.

Sec. 301. State flexibility in regulation of health insurance coverage.

Sec. 401. Medicaid payment reform.

Sec. 501. Ensuring access to emergency services without excessive charges for out-of-network services.

Sec. 502. Publishing of cash price for care paid through health savings accounts.

Sec. 503. Liberating the local practice of health care.

Get the Facts and Decide – Abortion, Education, Immigration

Capitol HillIn an age where you can’t trust what the news reports and misinformation is rampant on social media I’m going to post the just the facts on many laws that are being proposed and possibly have passed.  I don’t necessarily agree with these bills.  I will only post what actual Government Agencies are posting. This is in an effort to educate. I will let you decide for yourselves if you agree with these bills or not.

H.R.147 – Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2017
Sponsor: Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ-8] (Introduced 01/03/2017)

This bill imposes criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly or knowingly attempts to: (1) perform an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent; (2) use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; (3) solicit or accept funds for the performance of such an abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the United States or across a state line for the purpose of obtaining such an abortion.

Violations or attempted violations shall result in fines and/or imprisonment for up to five years.

The bill authorizes civil actions (for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages) by: (1) fathers, or maternal grandparents if the mother is an unemancipated minor, of unborn children who are the subject of an abortion performed or attempted through any of the above violations; or (2) women upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted with a knowing or attempted use of force or threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion.

To prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this bill, the bill authorizes injunctive relief to be obtained by: (1) the women upon whom such an abortion is performed or attempted, (2) a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the woman is an unemancipated minor, (3) the father of such an unborn child, or (4) the Department of Justice.

Violations of this bill are deemed to be prohibited discrimination under title VI (Federally Assisted Programs) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Violators of title VI lose federal funding.)

Medical or mental health professionals must report known or suspected violations to law enforcement authorities. Criminal penalties are established for a failure to so report.

A woman having such an abortion may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable.

Courts must make such orders as necessary to protect the anonymity of any woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she does not give her written consent to such disclosure. In the absence of such a woman’s written consent, any party, other than a public official, who brings an action must use a pseudonym.

For purposes of this bill, “abortion” is defined as the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, unless the act is intended to: (1) save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, (2) remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion, or (3) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

capitaldomeH.R.354 – Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2017
Sponsor: Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN-6] (Introduced 01/06/2017)

This bill prohibits, for a one-year period, the availability of federal funds for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates or clinics, unless they certify that the affiliates and clinics will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion during such period. This restriction does not apply in cases of rape or incest or where a physical condition endangers a woman’s life unless an abortion is performed.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture must seek repayment of federal assistance received by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate or clinic, if it violates the terms of the certification required by this bill.

Additional funding for community health centers is provided for the one-year period described above.
See Fact concerning a similar bill Obama signed in 2010

H.R.83 – Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act

Sponsor: Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA-11] (Introduced 01/03/2017)

This bill prohibits a state or local government from receiving federal financial assistance for a minimum of one year if it restricts or prohibits a government entity or official from: (1) sending to or receiving from the responsible federal immigration agency information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, or (2) maintaining or exchanging information about an individual’s status.

The bill restores assistance eligibility upon a Department of Justice (DOJ) determination that the jurisdiction no longer restricts or prohibits such actions.

DOJ shall report each year to Congress regarding state or local jurisdictions that restrict or prohibit such actions.

congress2H.R.610 – To distribute Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools. [Choice of Education Act of 2017]
Sponsor: Rep. King, Steve [R-IA-4] (Introduced 01/23/2017)

This bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and limits the authority of the Department of Education (ED) such that ED is authorized only to award block grants to qualified states.

The bill establishes an education voucher program, through which each state shall distribute block grant funds among local educational agencies (LEAs) based on the number of eligible children within each LEA’s geographical area. From these amounts, each LEA shall: (1) distribute a portion of funds to parents who elect to enroll their child in a private school or to home-school their child, and (2) do so in a manner that ensures that such payments will be used for appropriate educational expenses.

To be eligible to receive a block grant, a state must: (1) comply with education voucher program requirements, and (2) make it lawful for parents of an eligible child to elect to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the state or to home-school their child.

No Hungry Kids Act

The bill repeals a specified rule that established certain nutrition standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs. (In general, the rule requires schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in school meals; and meet children’s nutritional needs within their caloric requirements.)

An Amazing Article from the Boston Globe on Feminism

Probably one of the BEST articles I have read so far on this subject.


From the Boston Globe

Women Against Feminism: Some women want equality without anger

By Cathy Young | SEPTEMBER 02, 2014

DO AMERICAN women still need feminism? A controversial social media movement called Women Against Feminism features women explaining — mostly in “selfies” with handwritten signs — why they do not. Feminist responses have ranged from bafflement to vitriol or mockery to arguments that these women don’t know what feminism is. But while this new movement has its silly aspects, it raises some much-needed questions about feminism’s present and future state — and, in the weeks since it first attracted notice, many prominent feminists have helped validate some of the criticisms.

One might assume that Women Against Feminism is a traditionalist backlash against gender equality. Yet many of the women say they reject feminism precisely because they are pro-equality. A blogger who goes by AstrokidNJ has analyzed a week’s worth of posts on Women Against Feminism and found that 46 percent were egalitarian, 19 percent endorsed men’s issues, and 12 percent criticized feminist intolerance toward dissent. Only 23 percent reflected traditionalist views such as support for distinct sex roles, chivalry, or full-time motherhood.
Some commentators suggest that pro-equality women who reject feminism are misguided. After all, the dictionary defines feminism as belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. But these women usually know that (and often sarcastically stress that they do). They simply think that real-life feminism has come to mean something else: vilification of men, support for female privilege, and a demeaning view of women as victims rather than free agents.

Are they wrong? Well, one of Women Against Feminism’s harshest critics, leading feminist pundit Jessica Valenti, makes it clear that being a feminist means believing that women in America and other modern liberal democracies are “a victimized class.” They are “systematically discriminated against in school, work, and politics,” “objectified,” and “harassed, attacked, and sexually assaulted.” This, Valenti asserts, is “not a matter of politics, but of truth.”

But contributors to Women Against Feminism disagree. They note that many studies show the pay gap to be largely due to women’s choices of more family-friendly — and life-friendly — jobs. (As for school, American women have long outpaced men in educational attainment, currently earning about 60 percent of college degrees.) They take issue with rape statistics that lump alcohol-fueled, judgment-impaired sex with sexual assault. They argue that men face their own negative stereotypes. They point out that men are at higher risk than women for most violent crimes — and may be far more likely than previously thought to experience domestic violence and sexual coercion. They say that in many areas, from divorce to mental health to workplace safety, it’s men who have it worse.

These arguments need to be engaged, not dismissed and ridiculed. Yet many feminists have responded with nastiness that would normally be called misogynist: In the New York Observer, Nina Burleigh focused on a few photos showing too much skin or black-polished fingernails to sneer that the women were “dressed and posed like ads for DIY escort services.”

Meanwhile, even as feminists deplore accusations of male-bashing, many are embracing “ironic misandry” (hatred of men). Valenti recently tweeted a picture of herself in a t-shirt declaring “I bathe in male tears.” Other examples include the mottoes “Ban Men” and “Kill All Men” and Internet jokes that turn book titles into castration one-liners. Feminist commentators such as’s Amanda Hess defend this practice as a cool in-joke that annoys sexists and mocks the idea that feminists are anti-male.

But aside from the fact that cliquish in-jokes are off-putting and “ironic” hate can still sound pretty hateful, the “misandry” joke falls flat because there are too many real-life examples of feminist anti-male bias. The National Organization for Women has fought against more rights for divorced fathers, often suggesting that men who advocate for such rights are abusers. Feminist groups urging stronger enforcement of domestic violence laws have cried foul when such tough policies have led to more arrests of women. Anti-rape activists have championed campus rules that brand the man an attacker and the woman a victim if they have sex while equally intoxicated.

Women Against Feminism is largely a reaction against this mindset. The anti-feminist egalitarians believe that, whatever feminism’s positive past gains, its dominant modern version is hostile to men and demeaning to women. They are right.

I don’t like the “anti-feminism” label because of its common meaning of “anti-woman” or “anti-equality.” But, call it reformed feminism or egalitarianism, we need a movement for true equality — against both old-fashioned sexism and new gender polarization.

Cathy Young is a columnist at Newsday and Follow her on Twitter @CathyYoung63.

Honey Badger Radio: Zoe Quinn and Feminist Mean Girls

This week the Honey Badgers discuss bullying, depression, sexual bribery, bukaki, the war on anti-feminists, and vaginal slime. Enjoy.

Honey Badgers and the Killjoy

For those of you who don’t know, the Honey Badgers are an awesome group of women who believe in equality for men and women. These women are not feminists. They believe in true equality among the sexes and not special treatment for one gender over the other. For those of you who have noticed how active I have become lately on this topic, I was very honored to have been asked onto their show to discuss feminism in comics.

I would like to thank them all for having me on. It was great to be able to discuss these very serious topics (not just the comics ones) with women who weren’t going to make excuses for gender.

Please sit back and listen to this cast. Then visit their website at