Bart Stupak is a giant f-ing tool:
All 41 Republican Senators vowed in a letter today to do everything in their power to kill Democrats’ health care legislation and vote en bloc against procedural motions Democrats want to use to fix the health reform bill passed Christmas Eve by the Senate.
This would include a scenario where the Republican Senators oppose language championed by anti-abortion rights Democrats in the House and side instead with abortion rights defenders.
The House moderates want to ban any federal money from going to insurance companies that offer elective abortions. The Senate-passed health reform bill would create pools of segregated funds with only private money going to cover abortions.
âSo youâd be voting with Barbara Boxer on an abortion measure?â a reporter asked Sen. Tom Coburn, the OB-GYN and Oklahoma Republican who vehemently opposes abortion rights, at a press conference this afternoon. Boxer, a California Democrat, is a vehement supporter of abortion rights.
âYes I would. I certainly would,â Coburn said, clarifying that he would oppose a procedural motion in the Senate to allow the stricter ban on federal funding for abortion from being added to the Senate health reform bill.
His C-Street buddies are now openly calling him a useful idiot.
Makewi
Brilliant!
D.N. Nation
Gotta hand it to the wingnuts: If it took pooping their pantaloons on national television to keep healthcare from passing for an hour, they’d do it.
Nellcote
Wow, who wrote that? That’s the cleanest description of the differences I’ve seen.
Erik Vanderhoff
All 41 Republican Senators vowed in a letter today to do everything in their power to kill Democratsâ health care legislation and vote en bloc against procedural motions Democrats want to use to fix the health reform bill passed Christmas Eve by the Senate.
Remind me again why we spent so much goddamn time on Olympia fucking Snowe?
Who’s fucking running the Senate, a cognitively disabled eunuch marmoset hopped up on quaaludes and gin?
Makewi
As I said yesterday, it is fascinating that it is likely going to be the issue of the Dems unwavering support for federally funded baby killin’ that will be this bills undoing.
Free Abortion > Health Care “Justice”
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Yea, I heard Kyle in full concern troll for House dems claiming they would make points of order and defeat some of the fixes. But the deal is that Reid and dems will not propose any measures that would make the Parliamentarian label them non germaine. And from what I can gather from most senate watchers who know the body, that the key fixes, like say excise tax, is just what the reconciliation process was meant for. And anyways, dems will consult with the Parli. before hand. So it’s just smoke and mirrors fear mongering House dems, who know better, except for dunces like Stupak, who I am still convinced wants to kill the bill and is talking out both sides of his mouth, al Ben Nelson and Holy Joe.
And no one will attempt to put anything related to abortion up for the recon. process. Clearly non germaine. Coburn is just blowing smoke up peoples ass like he always does.
Chris Johnson
I’m hoping they ARE on television saying all this. The media guys will happily run it and think the bozos are being all tough and HEAVY BUSINESS. Meanwhile, voters will hate them more and more. Go ahead, shoot yourselves in the foot- maybe if you’d done this before Iraq many lives could have been spared.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
Of course you would.
Carnacki
Paul Bunyan’s axe is sharp. Stupak isn’t.
bkny
The House moderates want to ban any federal money from going to insurance companies that offer elective abortions.
the house ‘moderates’.
Xecky Gilchrist
I always thought Bunyan’s axe was a woodcutting tool, not an f-ing tool.
KG
You know, a smart majority leadership would seek to have a vote on the abortion issue, just to get the anti-abortion crowd pissed off at the GOP. Just think of the fun you could have with that come November:
Sure, he says he’s pro-life, but when the time came to vote on not giving federal tax dollars to abortion clinics, he voted to give your tax dollars to abortion clinics.
Run that commercial, every twenty minutes in every red state with a Republican senator running for reelection and watch how many social conservatives decide to stay home.
Mike Kay
But I thought this was a give away to the insurance industry?
Why would the goopers block fatter profits to their rich contributors?
Nethead Jay
Bwahahahaha, Cole, that title is just great. Can’t stop laughing.
Oh, and Bart Stuprick should have his attitude readjusted with a 2×4 – preferably several times.
ETA: Hmmm, there’s some grunting trollish noises around here. Probably best to just ignore them.
geg6
@D.N. Nation:
Fixed to sound much more like something the wingnuts would actually do.
Barry
And I’m sure that GOP people are feeling him out, and negotiating his (oh-so-pained-and-tragic) break with the Democratic Party (“I didn’t leave it; it left me”) for Fall 2010.
Mike Kay
Obama town hall meeting on CSPAN 3
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@bkny: Yeah, that’s been grinding on my nerves lately too. Stupak is not a “moderate”, neither is Blanche Lincoln.
BombIranForChrist
The Republicans don’t need to do anything. The Dems will just ask for more time until the world ends, and then … BOOM … Apocalypse.
Don’t pretend that Stupak is the only impediment. He’s just the most visible one currently. I suspect Lieberman will find some way to make himself relevant, even if the 51 majority effectively strips him of his spoiler role.
Svensker
@Erik Vanderhoff:
Don’t insult the marmoset.
Joseph Nobles
I like how in an article where 41 Republican Senators are strapping themselves to the dynamite, Barbara Boxer is the vehement one.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Erik Vanderhoff:
Whoa there, pal. Harry Reid is NOT a marmoset.
Makewi
@Nethead Jay:
How fondly I remember the outrage, which continues to this day about a certain phrase put forth by someone from the Atlantic that resembles also having to do with 2 x 4’s. Consistency demands you be excommunicated by the hive here.
geg6
OT, but it sounds like BOB has been emailing Digby:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/wingnut-mail-call.html
Zifnab
@KG:
If you really want to have some fun, throw a pro-choice Dem up there, saying how he would have passed the bill to provide money for millions of teen mothers that just want to have their child.
No point in using only one side of a double-edged sword. There are so many ways to work a vote against the HCR bill into a vote for abortions, many of them perfectly legitimate.
Folderol and Ephemera
Yeah, yeah, everyone jumps up to defend the marmosets, but no one seems to give a fig for the good name of eunuchs with TBI who enjoy their martinis with a nice methaqualone or two.
Haters.
dmsilev
@Makewi: Can I get a translation from Wingnut to English here? I’m afraid that Google Translate has a pretty poor Wingnut dictionary and isn’t working well.
-dms
Zifnab
@Joseph Nobles: They’re not really strapping themselves to dynamite. This is just another edition of IOKIYAR. If you think the party faithful will even blink at this vote, you’re nuts. Rush Limbaugh said it or it didn’t happen.
Makewi
@dmsilev:
A translation for the McCardle reference?
John S.
Wow, that really does sound like him.
Svensker
@Folderol and Ephemera:
LOL
Joseph Nobles
@Zifnab:
I didn’t mean to imply they were doing themselves any harm electorally. Just some hyperbole at how far they’d go to destroy HCR.
I think Pelosi should throw $5 million to Kucinich for a chemtrail study to get him on board and get this bill passed. It would be the best wasted $5 million ever.
KG
@Zifnab: oh, I didn’t even think of that. That’s fucking brilliant.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
What else they gonna do?
demkat620
Stupak is an arrogant son of a bitch. I hope, really, really hope he loses his seat.
Get your religion out of my government!
Vega
I’m all for demonizing Stupak, but Kucinich is the true narcissistic tool on this one. Not progressive enough, so let’s wait until 50 years and see what happens.
Zifnab
@Vega: In all fairness, we usually get a new health care bill to vote against every sixteen to twenty years. So, you know, maybe when my unborn kids are entering high school, Kucinich might like what he sees.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Erik Vanderhoff:
That was the Obrahma plan. Harry Reid pulled the plug on it when he felt it wasn’t going anywhere with Snowe. Now we’ll never know if we coulda got Snowe because she done went rogue republican. Which is to say she absolutely opposes any plan now, with or without a public option when she was once ostensibly “for” a plan featuring a triggered public option. (Read: Lucy has the football, Charlie Brown is about to kick it.)
Moonbatting Average
Coburn is an OB-GYN? I’m sorry for not following wingnut Senators’ career arcs more closely, but that’s fucking surreal, right?
Nellcote
@Mike Kay:
When a tree falls in the woods does anyone hear it? Sure would be nice if the cables could take a break from defending Rove, Cheney and other assorted goopers to cover this. CSPAN 3? I know the channel exists but I’ve never been anywhere that it’s on offer.
geg6
OT again…but I loved this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKC3AiQkmuY&feature=player_embedded
Now I am not a Patrick Kennedy fan and I think he was never cut out for fulfilling his dad’s congressional dynasty dreams. But this is a thing of beauty. Truly a thing of beauty.
Mike Kay
@Zifnab:
Kucinich is 63, so may not be alive in 20 years.
geg6
@Nellcote:
The sad truth is that I watch much of the best stuff CSPAN shows on CSPAN 3. That was the channel they showed the Obama HCR summit a few weeks ago and since I was home with a horrible stomach flu, I actually got to watch all seven hours of it.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Moonbatting Average:
Ron Paul also.
John Cole
@Nethead Jay: Stolen from a commenter.
Nellcote
@geg6:
I know, I’ve read the schedules. I’m just jealous!
Les
@Mike Kay: Well, he *does* have great health care and will for the rest of his life, so he might still be around to gum up the works in 20 years…
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Nellcote: You can stream it on your computer
Nellcote
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I wonder if they still “share their love”. as Bush put it.
The Populist
@Makewi:
As I posted in the other thread, that is a lie and you know it. The Hyde Amendment will still be in effect.
You claim you have no qualms with abortion, right? Yet here you are saying this nonsense.
Oh and stop with the free abortion = HCR. That is just talking points and you know it.
Tsulagi
Yeah, like no one could ever have predicted. You gotta appreciate the black comedy, as when a few months ago almost all Rs with a few Ds gave a majority vote to the Dorgan amendment, but not enough for cloture, to allow drug re-importation, an Obama campaign pledge.
If Ds had a tenth of the R-discipline this never ending saga would have long been over. Remember Grassley late last summer being asked by a reporter if he and fellow Rs were purposely trying to stall HCR. He said nope, not his fault, that if the supermajority Democrats really wanted HCR they could have passed anything they liked by last July.
Obviously his dumbass reasoning was flawed. He was thinking like a Republican. Looking forward to future R-campaign commercials: âWe voted to lower the price of prescription drugs, and for a womanâs right to choose, but those fat-cat corporate loving neanderthals shut us down.â American politics aka The Onion at work.
Mike Kay
@Les:
Funny how Kucinich doesn’t turn down his private insurance benefit, considering his participation helps fund evil corporations.
Nellcote
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Elitist! you assume everyone has a high speed connection. ;)
Adrienne
Electorally, I think they just strengthened the Dems’ hand for the midterms:
By signing this pledge, they’ve effectively made the fact that THEY are the reason why nothing gets done in Washington painfully obvious. For months, they’ve bitched and whined about not being included, about how Obama/Pelosi/Reid were not being “bipartisan” enough, how noone bought them a pony, blah blah blah. Now that it’s crunch time, they are openly pledging to jam up the business of the Senate with frivolous bullshit and not even try to work w/ Democrats. Independents will not like this. This is a campaign ad in a gift box w/ a pretty little bow on top.
Why are they even in Congress if they are openly vowing to do no work at all? What the hell are we paying these assholes for? It must be pretty sweet to have a job that pays you to do nothing – even better – one that pays you to make sure noone else gets anything done either. If I came to work everyday vowing to not do my job my ass would be fired…like yesterday. What a bunch of fucking tools.
SiubhanDuinne
@Moonbatting Average:
Is Coburn the one Preznit Dubya had in mind when he said “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their, their love with women all across this country”?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Nellcote: yea,, I thought about that after I posted it. Sorry, I know what it’s like to have dial up, for me from 2000 to 2007 before high speed was available here.
The Populist
So basically for those who want abortions, they will have to go to an private insurer. Fact.
For people who just like to make shit up for partisan reasons:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/09/2222673.aspx
John Cole
I kinda like Coburn. At least you know where you stand with him, and while I disagree with almost everything he believes in and think his ideas would be disastrous, I get the sense he is an honest broker and if he actually agreed with you on something, would follow through on it.
Nellcote
@Mike Kay:
Even Big Ed has turned on Kucinich.
Dollared
Who is the babyfaced poster at The Note?
“The House moderates want to ban any federal money from going to insurance companies that offer elective abortions. ”
This is wrong on two counts: first, Stupak idiots are not “moderates.” They want to ELIMINATE FROM THE MARKETPLACE (the exchanges) any insurance company that insures women who want to use THEIR OWN MONEY to buy insurance that includes coverage for abortion. That is not moderate. It is deeply divisive and violates the legal rights of the insurance companies and women.
Second, insurance companies do not “offer elective abortions.” They provide insurance coverage to people, and those people go to hospitals and clinics that “offer elective abortions.”
People get paid to produce such, uh inaccurate sentences?
Roger Moore
@geg6:
Then you should have changed it to “pooping in their diapers on national TV”. Or would that only apply to Senator Vitter?
SiubhanDuinne
@geg6:
It does sound a lot like Brick Oven Boob, although I didn’t see any reference to “The Facility” so maybe it’s a faux BOB.
FSM knows there was a nice big choice, but this is my favourite paragraph from the piece:
That’s just so great, to cite authority like that! Rush Limbaugh! Charles Krauthammer! I know I’m convinced!
Makewi
@The Populist:
Try this. Hyde covers spending under HHS appropriations, yes? Does ObamaCare get its funding under HHS appropriations?
Have you ever actually read Hyde?
The Populist
@SiubhanDuinne:
Fact: Bush showed up on an Aircraft Carrier in a flight suit.
Who’s the narcissist?
Tax Analyst
@Makewi:
Makewi, I gotta go hold down some babies while the Democractic Party tears each one apart limb-by-limb, so I won’t have time to follow your comments here. That should free up some of your reply time, so why don’t you make good use of that time and just go fuck yourself?
Yeah, that’s a personal attack.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@John Cole: LOL, he is a sincere bullshitter, I’ll give him that. he is one of those con men that will win you over with 90 percent common sense, and with the remaining ten percent steal your cookies. he is smarter than the average wingnut, by quite a lot. But still a gold plated one.
Adrienne
@John Cole: This.
And unlike some of his brethren who pray for destruction and failure, he has said that he prays for Obama and his family – for their safety, for clarity, that he makes good decisions, etc. I’m w/ you Cole. I may disagree w/ 99.9% of what he stands for, but at least he actually stands for something that isn’t subject to change w/ the slightest change of the political winds.
The Populist
@Makewi:
Yes, I have read Hyde. Oh, and since you tried to discredit me in the other forum, I will refuse to answer anymore comments using the term: OBAMACARE.
It’s HCR or it’s bullshit partisan spin. I don’t play partisan spin games.
Nellcote
@SiubhanDuinne:
Not much of a spectrum!
SiubhanDuinne
@Makewi:
Have you ever actually made sense?
rootless-e
We love the big shots
don’t spend on the have nots
Money, we take it
legal reason, we fake it
Oh, make you wanna holler
The way they do my court
Make me wanna holler
The way they do my court
This ain’t livin’, This ain’t livin’
No, no baby, this ain’t livin’
No, no, no
We make up laws so there’s no chance
To increase regulation of finance
Bills pile up sky high
Send that boy off to die
Make me wanna holler
The way they do my court
Make me wanna holler
The way they do my court
— Marvin “Justice” Roberts, Inner Sanctum Blues
The Populist
To people who think that Hyde pays for abortions I counter with facts:
Any fool who wants to act like it’s abortion when a woman’s life is in danger is a lost soul.
SiubhanDuinne
@Nellcote:
Really. The whole gamut from A to B.
Adrienne
@Makewi:
Have *YOU* ever tried reading the Senate bill? The Senate bill rather clearly states that no public money shall be used for elective abortions.
Therefore, STFU.
Mike Kay
@Nellcote:
that’s the thing, congressional health insurance is run via private insurance carriers, just like every employer provided health plan.
If hippies like kucinich insist that private insurance plans are so evil, why don’t they drop out — why continue to feed the evil corporations they want to kill?
And watch, when Kucinich turns 65, he won’t sign up for medicare, because it will be more expensive than the employee benefit he receives now for free.
lol
Stringing Snowe along was about keeping moderate Democrats in line.
When you have 60 votes in play and you need 60, every Senator is the deciding vote and can make demands. If you have 61 votes in play, it’s substantially easier to play them against each other.
Reid’s biggest mistake in the process was cutting Snowe loose before locking in the support of the caucus. Lieberman and Nelson didn’t start shitting all over the bill until Snowe was gone from the table.
The Populist
@SiubhanDuinne:
I have and there is a section (510) that allows for abortion in the event a woman’s life is in danger, rape/incest.
The bill does allow states to make a call on their own (state’s rights).
He thinks I am some kind of rube and it won’t play.
The Populist
@Adrienne:
Basically (since I keep being moderated for some reason) he is wrong and you are right.
Section 510 outlines what can be used and I will not describe it since I think it’s why I am being moderated (like not using the s-word).
SiubhanDuinne
@The Populist:
Fix’d. I know where narcissism resides!
cat48
I don’t agree with Stupak, but his point is that the exchanges should be like the OPM ins. exchanges which do not cover abortion. I have that type of ins. thru OPM and it only covers abortion for health reasons, rape, incest, etc., due to the Hyde amendment. Millions of fed. employees are covered this way and it never crossed my mind until hcr debate started. I can’t buy abortion insurance thru my exchange either.
Biden can over-rule he Parlimentarian, if necessary. He has final say. Of course, it would be an extremely ugly situation, but whatever it takes.
PaulB
LOL… Dear heart, that little talking point of yours, along with the rest of your little talking points, was debunked on that other thread, as you well know, which means that you are basically making shit up for the sole purpose of trolling, which is kinda pathetic, if you think about it.
The Populist
@PaulB:
Obamacare, LOL.
Can we start calling the Great Recession: The Bush Recession seeing that both father and son put us into deep holes?
maus
@Makewi:
Lord knows it’s not a deceptive argument at all to conflate “free abortion” with “private insurance providers who receive federal funding can no longer provide abortion-related care.”
Also, if the government provides the benefits to its employees currently, these benefits should be provided to the people.
When anti-abortion politicians become actually interested in reducing the number of abortions, I’ll care what you have to say.
rootless-e
Ooh, now let’s get down tonight
Baby the Five are like a coven
We need some lovin’
And baby, I’m a Dred Scott dreamer
I get extremer and extremer
And when I get that feeling
I want Federalist Society Healing
– Marvin “Justice” Roberts, Federalist Society Healing.
The Populist
@KG:
Amen. I argue this all the time. The GOP and their ilk need to put their money where their mouths are and have an up and down vote on abortion once and for all.
When they lose, and public opinion is divided but not heartless on this matter, I want to watch the villagers abandon these maroons once and for all.
They need abortion to keep the troops rallied around their pro-corporate causes.
Makewi
No, actually it doesn’t. What it does do is fall short of Stupak in the following way. Stupak states clearly that no federal funding may be used to pay for abortion. The Senate bill merely states that no funding from this bill may be used and that the person must pay from a different source, which could be some other bit of federal funding.
Hope that clears things up.
maus
Also, are there any liberals who, without irony, use “Hillarycare” and “Obamacare”?
The Populist
@maus:
If the mother’s life is in danger, there is a section of the Hyde amendment that allows help in that case.
Only heartless people and fools who have an agenda try selling this as ABORTION for the masses. I am sorry, but if a woman’s life is in danger, save the woman. That couple can always adopt or try again.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@lol: And Nelsen and Lieberman were no goes in their own way. Lieberman absolute no on any trigger, and Nelson, unless it was a trigger that could never be pulled. Snowe was under strict orders to do just what she did, waffle around giving some cover of the appearance of bipartisanship, like with Enzi/Grassley et al in the Finance Committee study group.
Make no mistake, the GOP caucus was never ever going to vote for any legitimate reform, unless they themselves got to write the bill. And certainly, absolutely nada expansion of the federal government into providing insurance. It is a base ideological question for them, and an existential one as a party.
And Joe Lieberman was never going to go along with a PO or medicare buy in, no matter the fuck what. Whether a vote was taken last July, or anytime. period. The length of time till we got to this point has been long and painful, but I don’t see it happening much of any way different, except for the Mass election, that threw a monkey wrench in the works.
The numbers were never there to get much more than what we have currently. All hand wringing aside.
Wag
Fixed
Wag
Wrong.
Actually, the Hyde Ammendment prohibits all federal monies from being used for abortion.
learn your history, don’t repeat talking pints.
maus
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: “Nelson, unless it was a trigger that could never be pulled”
Of course, the triggers suggested so far seemed susceptible to a numbers-juggling worthy of “Hollywood accounting”.
PTirebiter
@SiubhanDuinne:
I hate to be a fence sitter, but I’m waiting to hear from Frist up in the replay booth.
rootless-e
Can I just state for the record that the repeated re-passage of the Hyde amendment is a grossly immoral failure of Congress, the public, and any supposedly just diety
Just Some Fuckhead
@lol:
lol, indeed. You got that backwards. Snowe was stringing us along, not the other way around.
ETA: The Snowe play was simply to appease Obama’s bipartisanship fetish, nothing to do with the Democrat moderates.
Makewi
@Wag:
Good lord. It’s almost like you people don’t bother to read and prefer to keep going around in circles.
Fine, if you want to pretend you know something rather than learn the truth of it, be my guest.
PTirebiter
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
I completely agree. Although I’m afraid, at this point, far too many have invested far too much in their ineffectual POTUS narrative to ever turn back. Their egos could never stand the strain of accepting the least complicated and most reasonable explanation.
Jake
maus
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Exactly. If it was anything other than a huge puppet show, it would have been handled in more of a mature manner. Instead, it was a cable news story narrative, fully scripted from beginning to end.
demimondian
@Makewi: Remember, folks, this character’s a fake spoof troll. It isn’t worth spending time on — if you need to pull out the pie script to make it possible to ignore it, that’s a good thing to do.
Corner Stone
@lol:
Jeebus H. Baby FSM.
Corner Stone
@John Cole: God in heaven.
PTirebiter
@Makewi:
The obvious opening gambit for an aspiring Sensei such as yourself.
I’m guessing ruffies, along with shouting “hey look over there” is your go-to approach for meeting women as well. Schmuck.
joes527
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
The numbers were never there to get the Senate bill through the house.
Unless Nancy is getting ready to emerge from the 11th dimension and reveal the end game that gets TFB P’d, then we haven’t been doing much other than hand wringing since last October.
I saw that she said that she had the votes she needed if the vote were held today, but I’ve also seen an analysis that has her ~11 votes short. The fact that they are pushing back on the WH’s timeline suggests to me that the ducks aren’t in a row.
I actually think that the R senators made a misstep today. Handled carefully, Stupak could now back out of his position with: “I wanted to stop abortion, but the Republican party put politics above life.” I’m wondering whether Bart would prefer to crawl back under his rock and hide at this point. He won’t back off if it means losing face. Carefully managed, this could save face.
That, along with the standalone “medicare for everyone” bill (that doesn’t modify or delay passing the existing senate bill) would make for a great 11th dimensional finish. I don’t think it would pass, but giving medicare for everyone its own vote w/o disturbing TFB could be the ticket to HCR passage in the house. It wouldn’t convince Dennis, but would it swing other votes?
If this were a novel, I’d be peeking at the last chapter to see how it comes out about now.
Corner Stone
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Actually I think this stringing along was mutual.
nancydarling
John, no matter how reasonable Coburn seems to you, he is a right wing loon with a vitriolic, anti-gay agenda. Running for the senate in ’04, he said that lesbianism was so rampant in south eastern OK, that schools would only let one girl at a time use the restroom. I don’t know how to format it , but here is a link to the story
http://www.alternet.org/rights/20162/
Zifnab
@Mike Kay:
I don’t know. As a congressman, he gets really good health care coverage.
Zifnab
@Makewi:
Wake up SHEEPLE!
Why won’t you listen to THE TRUTH?!
The POLITICIANS ARE LYING to you!
I AM THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN TRUST!
/Like this?
kay
@cat48:
If Bart Stupak had shown an interest in anything at all his entire career he might have some credibility here. He hasn’t, though. When did he become this huge towering figure of morality?
He’s just another asshole using the health care spotlight for self-glorification.
I swear to God, this unending nightmare has attracted egotistical assholes like moths to a flame. Every backbencher weenie sees a chance to shine, and get on television.
Have you seen him on television? It’s stomach-turning. This wan, sad smile, while he talks about himself for 7 minutes. Someone on his staff should remind him he might want to mention health care.
I can’t imagine when he’s finding time to work on this compromise he insists he’s looking for. He spends huge chunks of each day talking about how principled and brave he is.
Just Some Fuckhead
@nancydarling:
In defense of Coburn, he may have seen the chilling teenie movie “Naughty Schoolgirls Bathroom”. I watched it over and over and can still replay it vividly in my mind.
kay
@Zifnab:
Sherrod Brown refused health care coverage in the House until all US children were covered. Ted Strickland, the governor of Ohio, did the same when he was in the House.
So Dennis K. absolutely can, and should, refuse his House coverage.
El Cid
I don’t think Stupak wants HCR passed. I don’t think it’s as much grandstanding for the anti-abortion lunatics as it is that he wanted to find a good excuse to be on the side of the anti-HCR brigades. Not that he’s not an anti-abortion lunatic, but that it was a useful excuse.
Mnemosyne
@Adrienne:
Here’s the wingnut rationale that Makewi is trying to articulate: If women are getting government money to buy health insurance, that means they will have a little extra money available that they wouldn’t have if they had paid for the entire insurance policy out of their own pocket and they’ll be able to use that money to buy an abortion rider.
Makewi and her pals want to make sure that no one can afford an abortion, so they want to have the rule be that any insurance company that’s on the exchange is banned from providing abortion coverage on the private market, which would effectively mean you couldn’t buy abortion coverage.
Don’t forget that an “elective” abortion is any one where you’re not actively bleeding out at that precise moment. If your fetus has died in the womb and you want to have the corpse removed before it goes septic and kills you, that’s an “elective” abortion. If the sonogram shows that your fetus is developing with no brain, or with all of its organs outside its body, that’s an “elective” abortion, because it’s not going to endanger your life if you have a stillborn baby.
nancydarling
Coburn rented a room at C Street, also. Don’t know if he still lives there.
Annie
@Mnemosyne:
Finally a conservative principle we can agree on — small government.
Get these assholes out of our lives….
kay
@Mnemosyne:
If women are getting any federal money at all, in any form, they may reallocate their own funds to an abortion.
I think the only solution here is to ban all federal funding of any kind that goes to women, because you and I both know where THAT leads: abortion.
I can use the same stupid argument he’s relying on here with food stamps. Like all abortion arguments, it ends up at the same place.
The source of the problem? Women.
Midnight Marauder
@John Cole:
This is one of the silliest things you have ever written.
maus
@Zifnab: Not concern-trolly enough.
“You LIBERALS would be so much better off if you listened to ME because only I know how Centrist the US is!”
Right, duder.
Corner Stone
@Midnight Marauder:
Something outside of football and hot high-heeled women we can agree on.
maus
@John Cole:
If you set your expectations low enough, you’ll never be disappointed.
He’s not the worst, I’ll agree, but I don’t really see him offering or doing anything to champion either.
kay
@El Cid:
That’s what I think, too. That and he wants to be governor of Michigan. Running on his single issue: abortion.
Poor Michiganders.
Imagine that campaign. School funding? Abortion! Property taxes? Abortion! Unemployment? Abortion!
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne:
I’ve never seen it explained that way. Egad that’s wack. That’s a very strange way to think about “government money.” It’s like saying if you get called for jury duty and get a check from the county, you can’t use it to buy beer, and, not only that, you can’t put it in the bank and take out your own money to buy beer, because you only had that money–your own money–because of the “government money,” and “government money” shouldn’t be blown on beer. It’s not just that it has strings attached, it, like, spins new strings while sitting in your pocket.
Makewi
@Mnemosyne:
Nope, that’s not it. I understand that you need to have a “face” for your fantasies.
Mnemosyne
@kay:
@FlipYrWhig:
This is why so many people (rightfully) lost their shit over this Stupak amendment. It’s one thing to say that government money can’t directly pay for an abortion, but it’s something else entirely to say that a private citizen can’t spend her own money on an abortion rider to her insurance policy because government money is paying for other parts of her health insurance.
Makewi
@kay:
I’d have said the source of the problem is Democrats, specifically those who would rather play games and devise elaborate strategies rather than deal with the reality of the written word.
To be fair, this is one of the reasons why you aren’t going to keep power for very long. Because people can read, and as such, find it easy to figure out just how full of shit you are. Why you don’t just tell the truth, I suspect we both know.
El Cid
Conservatives think there should be “small government” when it comes to regulating business and handgun laws and social welfare programs, but government needs to be BIG, REAL BIG when it comes to blowing up brown people and enforcing fundamentalist religious dogma.
Makewi
@Mnemosyne:
Interesting in that Stupak says nothing about whether people can use their own money to pay for abortions. It says that no federal funds can be used to pay for it, no more, no less.
Adrienne
@Mnemosyne: Oh, I already knew all that ;-) I just wanted to be as clear and short as possible when pointing it out. I know exactly what they’re after w/ the Stupak amendment.
Mnemosyne
@Makewi:
‘Fraid so, sweetie pie. I realize that it requires you to read the language of the statute, understand that language, and then follow that language to its logical conclusion, but maybe we can draw you a picture if you’re still confused.
Any insurance company that sells subsidized insurance on the exchange is not allowed to sell additional abortion coverage to its clients even if those clients pay for it with their own money or they get kicked off the exchange.
Tell me, how long do you think Healthnet or Cigna would offer abortion coverage to anyone if providing it even to self-pay customers means they don’t get access to the millions of customers on the exchange?
kay
@Makewi:
Oh, baloney, Makewi. Stand by your principles, and take this ridiculous logic all the way out.
If you’re funding food stamps, you’re possibly paying for an abortion.
If you’re providing a housing subsidy, you’re possibly paying for an abortion.
I don’t know that pro-life zealots can fund the Department of Agriculture in good conscience.
“Pro-life” is endless. We knew it in 1972 and nothing’s changed, and no one has ever come up with a better compromise than Roe.
If you’re an honest ‘life begins at conception” zealot, and not a liar or an idiot, you’d have to outlaw chemical contraception. It’s in the insert to birth control pills. They can act as an abortificant. That’s a “life” according to Bart Stupak. Stand by your principles, and take it all the way out.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Mnemosyne: You’re assuming Makeweewee is interested in actual facts instead of making wee-wee all over the thread.
Makewi
@Mnemosyne:
That simply isn’t true. But, seeing as how you are holding up the power of understanding the written word, why not show me the text of the actual amendment that does what you are claiming. Don’t show me links to other people that are claiming it or analyzing it, show me the work yourself. Because I covered this yesterday. You must have been absent.
Mnemosyne
@Makewi:
It says that insurance companies on the exchange cannot provide abortion coverage even to self-pay customers. If they do, they get kicked off the exchange.
Again, I realize it takes some logic skills to understand that if insurance companies are not allowed to offer abortion coverage to any of their customers, they’ll stop offering it, but I bet if you try real real hard, you might get it.
Makewi
@kay:
Oh baloney kay. Rather than make an argument with the facts in hand you are forced to weave ever broadening conspiracy theories involving evil characters with ulterior motives.
I do appreciate that you think you are qualified to tell others what a proper position on an issue such as pro-life is. I think that goes with your desire to just get others who don’t agree with you to stfu. Telling really.
The Populist
@Makewi:
Actually i am wondering the same thing about you. It’s easy to say such things, yet when cornered you poke a stick to make the poster look like they are wrong.
I guess I need to learn a lesson here. No more playing around nicely with people who spout partisan lines just to get a reaction.
I noticed you don’t have a clever comeback on my explanation of sec. 510 of the Hyde Amendment. Gee, you need to be careful who you call out as uninformed. Unlike the villagers you sit here defending, many of us come prepared to debate with facts. I have yet to see you back anything up with more than GOP talking points and attempts to undermine the OP you respond to.
Makewi
@Mnemosyne:
Again, show your work.
gwangung
@Makewi: Aw, so cute. Trying to act like a grown up.
gwangung
@Makewi: Try not to bother the grown ups, dear.
celticdragonchick
@Erik Vanderhoff:
You were not supposed to find that out. Everybody who has read this blog is now compromised, and will have to be mem-wiped.
Joseph Nobles
The actual text of the Stupak amendment
A lot of argument about what Stupak says or doesn’t say. There it is.
ETA: And I have to say, I don’t see the language about forbidding insurance companies from selling abortion coverage.
Tsulagi
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Pretty much.
It was like watching her slowly and methodically waterboarding the Ds over months. Yet the dumbasses didnât realize they were drowning and kept giving her more water. While screwing their own legislation inch by inch trying to please her. Continually being told they were going too fast, but never quite enough to satisfy her. The supermajority D-submissives versus their passive-aggressive dominatrix. No contest.
The Populist
@Makewi:
No offense, Makewi…I have yet to see you post anything that backs up your argument outside of “No it isn’t”.
Sec. 510 – Hyde Amendment:
(
Seems to me you need to stop spreading half truths. Abortion is only allowed in case the mother’s life is in danger.
Sheesh…
Makewi
@The Populist:
sec 510 of the Hyde Amendment? Are you sure? I feel like you might be pulling my leg.
The Populist
@Makewi:
I showed mine, how about showing yours or does it mean Newsmax is the source so you know you’d be shut down in a heartbeat trying to use anything from that POS site.
Mnemosyne
@Makewi:
Here you go:
Here’s an analysis from George Washington University if you’re still confused by all of the big words.
Makewi
@Joseph Nobles:
I linked it yesterday. It won’t matter. People believe what they want to believe.
arguingwithsignposts
@nancydarling:
Southeastern OK? Damn!
Makewi
@The Populist:
There is no sec 510.
gwangung
@Joseph Nobles: Hm. And Mnemosyne’s clause?
Mnemosyne
@Makewi:
Wow, you lie about even the smallest things, don’t you?
I guess it must be the HHS that’s lying when they cite section 510 in that letter since section 510, according to you, doesn’t exist. Good thing we have you here to catch these things.
The Populist
@Makewi:
Then explain this:
Here’s a letter PDF from the HHS on the matter:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/smdl/downloads/smd021298.pdf
Doesn’t seem all that hard to dig up.
Makewi
@Mnemosyne:
You make me laugh.
Here’s why:
Odd. Nothing about being thrown off the exchange in there. Why it’s almost as if you don’t understand what is being said here. Weird, considering that it was you saying I should read and try to understand it.
You know what it does say. It says if you offer a benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions (which are not covered), you also have to offer one that is the exact same except that abortions are not covered. Considering that abortions won’t be funded by the bill in question, perhaps you could tell me why this would make sense?
The Populist
@Mnemosyne:
Thanks. For some reason whenever I post a quote from that stuff I go into moderation. He can try to discredit me all he wants but in the end, facts win out over bullshit.
The Populist
@Makewi:
They are clearly covered if the life of the mother is threatened. What don’t you get here?
If you are so sick that you are against such medical procedures, then I just don’t get why you lied to me in the other thread.
Makewi
@Mnemosyne:
1998 and you call me a liar. Nice.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/qt/HydeAmendmentText.htm
I give up, you are bound and determined to cling to whatever scraps of obsolete data, faulty analysis, and outright lies to believe that Hyde would cover and that Stupak does anything other than restrict federal funding for abortion.
Good luck with that.
arguingwithsignposts
Thanks, cleek. My blood pressure sends big props for your pie filter, because teh stupid is too much in this thread.
The Populist
@Makewi:
That pdf details the revisions made to the Hyde Act. What’s the problem here?
The Populist
Fact #1:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5599.html
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
You never answered the question I asked you yesterday.
Of course if, as you claim, it is simply a matter of prohibiting the use of taxpayer $ to fund abortions, you would acknowledge that there is no reason for Stupak not to support the Senate bill, which does just that.
But that would involve some honesty on your part.
The Populist
What is with moderation on links today? Shit, it’s a waste of time to post this stuff if I keep getting moderated.
Makewi
@Zuzuâs Petals:
The Senate bill does not prohibit other federal funds from being used for abortions, where Stupak does. Simple really.
Adrienne
@Makewi: Nope. That’s what the SENATE bill says and does – rather clearly and concisely by creating a separate pool of premiums paid to cover elective terminations – the SAME manner in which this issue is handled with regard to the federal employee exchange.
Now, the language of the Stupak amendment is so restrictive that it will have the *effect* of severely limiting the availability of abortion coverage even under non-subsidized insurance if purchased through the exchange. In order to have insurance plans in the exchange offer abortion coverage at all under the Stupak amendment they would have to offer two plans – one w/o any abortion coverage to those receiving subsidies and one w/ abortion coverage to those paying only w/ their money. Why would the insurance companies offer two when they could just offer the one plan w/o abortion coverage to all ppl? Why would they go through the administrative issues involved w/ offering two plans? They won’t. That means that MILLIONS of women will lose access to abortion simply b/c they participate in the exchange.
The effects of his amendment go way beyond just ensuring no federal funds pay for abortion. If ensuring that no federal funds go to pay for abortions was his only objective, he’d support the Senate language instead of insisting on more restrictive language that will freeze out any plan from even offering abortion at all.
The Populist
@Zuzuâs Petals:
But he’s wrong. Tax payer dollars ONLY go to fund abortions if the life of the mother is at stake. Only heartless a-holes fight against this.
Info:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5599.html
Even fucking Orren Hatch says:
“Today’s Hyde language, which has been in every annual Labor-HHS [Health and Human Services] appropriations bill since 1976, specifically prohibits federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions except if the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest or the life of the mother was in danger,”
Makewi
@The Populist:
To what is Hyde applicable? I’ll give you a hint, it isn’t all federal funds.
Makewi
@Adrienne:
No, in fact Stupak specifically states that no federal funding may be used, whereas the Senate bill merely states that no funding under this bill may be used. This leaves the door open for other sources of Federal funds.
I’ve covered this, and covered this. I’m done. Believe what you want.
David
@Makewi: I’ve seen this a couple times, but what “other federal funds” are you talking about?
The Populist
Todayâs Hyde language, which has been in every annual Labor-HHS [Health and Human Services] appropriations bill since 1976, specifically prohibits federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions except if the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest or the life of the mother was in danger – Orren Hatch
bemused
I just got a call from OFA. My rep, Jim Oberstar, has not yet said if he will vote for HCR on the 18th. I was going to call his office today & forgot. Definitely tomorrow. He’s Catholic & I remember how disappointed I was with him standing with the rest when Bush rushed back to the WH from his ranch during the Schiavo mess.
Mnemosyne
@Makewi:
Any plan that an insurance company offers on the private market that includes abortion coverage must also be offered on the exchange.
That means that no insurance company that is on the exchange is allowed to offer supplementary abortion coverage on the private market because that policy could not be offered on the exchange with the abortion coverage removed.
That means that, if you get your insurance coverage through the exchange, you cannot buy extra coverage for abortion care from your insurance company. The only way to get abortion coverage would be to pay for a full private policy completely out of your own pocket.
Insurers who violate the rules — like, say, offering supplemental abortion coverage — can be kicked off the exchange.
See? It’s very simple if you understand what “an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions” means.
The Populist
@Makewi:
I’ve already posted that. I’m not posting the info again only to see the quotes get moderated. You know the answer, I know the answer yet you like playing this game.
No problem. I already stated it. It’s all over the web. Not hard to find. Even Orren Hatch stated that Hyde covers life of the mo ther, ra pe and in cest and other li fe threatening issues.
You still haven’t answered my question…what is the problem with funding ab or tion, federally, when the li fe of the mo ther is at stake?
kay
@Makewi:
You’re dishonest, Makewi. You want reform to fail, and you’ve now posted at least 4 predictions of imminent Democratic losses.
You’re a partisan, and you’ve decided to seize “abortion” as a moral issue on which you are superior, in the hopes that this will kill the bill.
I don’t understand the bitterness and lack of generosity that moves conservatives to oppose reform. You’re all wonderfully satisfied with US health care delivery, and you can keep that delusional position. We know you’re conservative, and terrified of even an experiment, so we set this up so that it would not impact those conservatives who chant “USA Best In The World for Health Care!”. You can keep that.
Extending health insurance to someone else doesn’t have jack-all to do with you. You’re not losing anything. Relax.
Mnemosyne
@Makewi:
I hate to tell you, but the National Right to Life League may have left some text off when they posted the “complete” text.
I know, who could believe that “pro-life” people would be liars and distort information to get their way?
The Populist
@Mnemosyne:
I’d like to ask Makewi what his beef is with all this? Hyde covers all non li fe threatening variations of ab ortion when backed with fed funds. Now if Suzy Q (fictional character to make my point) gets laid off and buys a federally backed insurance plan with her own money and wants to get an ab ortion. She will have to pay out of pocket. If her li fe is at stake, she gets it paid for by the feds or state.
The Populist
@kay:
The weird part is that he isn’t even against it.
Weird.
The Populist
@Mnemosyne:
The fact still remains that there is a later revision that allows for the procedure to happen in case the li fe of the mo ther is at risk.
Makewi is wrong here.
Mnemosyne
@The Populist:
The really sick part is that only 18% of abortions are covered by private health insurance in the first place, and almost all of them are the worst case scenarios I’ve been talking about. Makewi wants someone who just found out that her wanted baby is missing its brain and can’t survive to be born to also get stuck with a giant hospital bill because she should be punished for daring to gestate a baby with a random birth defect.
(Edited for clarity.)
John
I’ve not read through the whole thread, which seems to have gotten derailed by Makewi’s trolling, but it seems to me that this threat is completely empty.
The Republicans are making this threat, apparently, to intimidate house Dems from voting for the Senate bill.
But, really, once the House passes the Senate bill, health care is already law. The Republicans have lost. Their threat has failed. All that remains is to debate various amendments to the bill. Are the Republicans really going to vote against tightening abortion restrictions because they made an empty threat a couple of months earlier that was designed to dissuade House Dems from doing something they’ve already done?
As soon as the House passes the Senate bill and Obama signs it, the Republicans have no further reason to obstruct anything. If they do it anyway, then they’re basically like Chigurh at the end of No Country for Old Men – being uselessly destructive entirely because they said they would be, even though there’s no point to it anymore.
The Populist
@Mnemosyne:
Agreed. To add on to that, the party of “fiscal responsibility” is asking the rest of us to pay for that child for the rest of it’s life.
The right don’t give two shits about any of this. As you know, they use it to keep the troops in line. The fact is every child that a mother doesn’t want is thrown into the foster care system. Studies do show these kids grow up with serious issues because the system is underfunded.
The right wants the middle class to pay this tab since they enjoy giving tax breaks to their rich benefactors. In the end, if a woman doesn’t fucking want her child, it’s her choice…not makewi, not Bart Stupak, not Uncle Sam.
The right, so full of bullshit about liberty yet too busy telling others how to live their lives.
SiubhanDuinne
Oh dear, Mnemosyne, have you benn cutting Makewi’s classes again? *Bad* Mnemosyne! *Bad!*
Mnemosyne
@SiubhanDuinne:
What can I say? I must have had needed to watch some paint dry.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: Am I right that the issue is primarily that women who ended up using the exchanges to buy health insurance would, under Stupak, not be able to be covered for abortion services? So the women who are having their choice restricted further are those who (1) have no employer-provided insurance, (2) are subject to the mandate, (3) use the exchanges, with or without subsidy.
GWU seems to be suggesting that eventually insurance companies would stop offering _any_ policies that covered abortion services. Of course, I’m no expert and they are, but it seems like for that to happen, using the exchanges would have to become the dominant way of purchasing insurance (as opposed to the employer-provided way most people get it now), and insurance companies would have to streamline their policy offerings greatly.
(It’s true that car companies make cars that satisfy California emissions and school textbook companies make books that satisfy Texas curriculum standards, but those businesses have more issues with scale than health insurance does, I’d think. You can make more and more kinds of policies in a way that you wouldn’t want to do with cars.)
It seems like in the future, from the insurance company perspective, they would offer some kind of no-frills Exchange Plan along with an array of Group Plans; the Group Plans could provide coverage for abortion services but the Exchange Plans could not except as allowed under Hyde and Stupak.
So abortion would be newly restricted for women who buy insurance on the individual market now (with their own money) and would use the exchanges under HCR (with their own money and/or with federal subsidy). Right? I just want to be sure I understand the contours of the dispute.
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
Nope.
Stupak Amendment: “No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion … .”
Just like the Stupak Amendment, pretty much.
Senate bill: “If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
â(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
â(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).”
Which bit of federal funding would that be? Be specific.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
I think that’s a pretty good summary. Women in the private insurance market will get to choose between paying less for a policy through the exchange with no abortion coverage or paying through the nose on the remaining private market for the exact same policy plus abortion coverage.
It will affect a fairly small group of people since most workers have insurance through their employers, but it’s a stupid and mean-spirited restriction.
FlipYrWhig
@Adrienne:
Here’s the thing, though. Insurance companies offer dozens and dozens of policies now, don’t they? I don’t see why they wouldn’t just continue to offer these two plans, one covering abortion and one not, as long as it made them money and wasn’t illegal. I would think that the logistics involved in maintaining separate plans would be pretty minor. Right now doesn’t each insurance company have to respond to a patchwork of state regulations by creating new products and/or new companies for each set of conditions?
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne:
Yes, agreed. And one of the sad effects of single-payer, an otherwise vastly superior method of reforming health care, would be that we could well end up applying Stupak to _everyone_.
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
Wrong and wrong. Oh, and wrong.
As I pointed out in my previous comment, Stupak does not say “no federal funds” but only those funds authorized or appropriated by the act.
And also as pointed out before, it certainly does do more than prohibit the use of those funds to pay for abortions. It prohibits the use of those funds to pay for any cost of any part of an insurance policy that also covers abortions.
So Stupak actually does more AND less than you claim.
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
Wrong. As explained several times here.
And of course, you STILL have not answered the question I linked to.
Yes, you do seem rather simple … really.
Zuzu's Petals
@Joseph Nobles:
Unfortunately, you can’t force Makewi to actually, you know, read the thing.
Joseph Nobles
@Adrienne:
Why would the insurance companies offer two when they could just offer the one plan w/o abortion coverage to all ppl?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the ultimate claims paid out on a policy w/ elective abortion are going to be less than one w/o. Pregnancy is expensive, as is childbirth, as is child health care. Insurance companies have calculators.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
The insurance companies would absolutely love to be able to offer two almost identical policies and charge twice the amount for the one that includes abortion coverage. They would steer as many women onto the more expensive one as they could. Imagine all of the scare commercials telling women that they’d better buy the more expensive policy because their baby could DIE!
It’s the consumers who would get screwed, as always. Making people decide between paying the rent and paying for healthcare is what we’re trying to get away from, and setting up a two-tiered system like that would take us in the opposite direction.
Joseph Nobles
@Mnemosyne:
Any plan that an insurance company offers on the private market that includes abortion coverage must also be offered on the exchange.
Stupak doesn’t say that.
Mnemosyne
@Joseph Nobles:
Section C, part 3, as quoted above:
I read that as saying that insurance companies on the exchange (“Exchange-participating”) cannot offer abortion-only supplementary coverage unless they also offer an identical supplementary plan without abortion coverage (“identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section”). And since the supplement would be abortion coverage, I can’t quite picture how you could craft a supplementary policy that could be offered on the exchange without abortion coverage.
Are there loopholes and ways for insurance companies to dodge around it by, say, combining podiatric coverage with abortion coverage? Sure. Is Cigna or Healthnet going to fight the enormous court battle that would follow when “pro-life” groups filed lawsuits against them for violating the rules? I’m guessing no, but you may have more faith in health insurance companies than I do.
kay
Legalities aside, and the text of the two amendments aside, I resent this.
I’m a taxpayer too, and I am sick to death of anti-abortion lobbyists getting all this deference and hushed respect for their “position” that is based on their claims of religiosity.
Because I am tolerant of religious. I am. I am currently going along with funnelling billions of dollars in grants to religious organizations, and I gotta tell you, I’ve been involved with some of them in the context of social work, and they are pushing religion with that money.
And I’m paying for it.
And though I don’t make any grand claims of religious conviction in terms of spending federal money, I do have a value system, and I think a lot of things that I pay for are immoral and wrong.
I think they have an OUTSIZE voice, because the press defer to them, and non-believers defer to them, because all you have to do is claim GOD and everyone has to fall in line, and I am sick of that.
If they want to talk about federal funding, I will talk about federal funding, but it’s ALL on the table, and religious can’t claim IMMUNITY from that bartering and debate. No special dispensation. Because that’s what we’re doing. We’re allocating combined funds, and they don’t get a special, higher place at the table.
mcc
So, the Stupak Amendment.
You can read the amendment text yourself here. It’s pretty simple.
Its direct effect is that if you or your employer receive a subsidy to buy health insurance, you cannot then purchase a health insurance policy which includes abortion coverage. (You can buy a “supplemental policy” that covers nothing but abortion. I have never heard of such a thing and I see no reason to believe such a thing will begin to exist or be widely taken advantage of.) That’s the only direct effect.
The Stupak Amendment does not ban abortion-covering insurance policies from being put on the exchange.
However a certain indirect effect is that insurance companies will be heavily discouraged from offering insurance policies on the exchange which cover abortion. This is because it is projected… I forget the exact number, but somewhere 40-60% of people on the exchange will be receiving subsidies, I think it’s a majority. (The people receiving subsidies will be a small part of the overall insurance market, but all of them are on the exchange, so within the exchange they dominate.) So if an insurance company puts a policy on the exchange that includes abortion coverage, they will be cutting off most of their market.
There was also a weird side effect of Stupak as originally written that I don’t think anyone exactly understands, which is that the insurance companies on the exchange are required to accept anyone, but people receiving subsidies are not allowed to buy abortion-covering plans, so there is a contradiction. Some people suggested that the contradiction meant that effectively Stupak would make it illegal to offer an abortion-covering plan; I don’t think I’m convinced courts would interpret things that way specifically. But this doesn’t really matter because the original Stupak amendment is now dead with the House bill and what we really need to worry about is the next thing Stupak does, which probably won’t have this defect.
Joseph Nobles
@Mnemosyne:
Insurance companies are not on the Exchange. The plans are. That’s the first place you’re misreading this.
That section says that no entity offering a plan on the Exchange that covers abortion beyond the exceptions in Stupak (rape, incest, physical endangerment) can offer only that plan on the Exchange. They must offer an identical plan on the Exchange that strikes non-excepted abortion coverage.
It says absolutely nothing about any plans offered outside the Exchange.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: I think I’m reading it the same way Joseph Nobles is:
For an insurance company to offer on the exchanges a plan that covered (a range of non-abortion-related conditions) AND abortion services that fall under rape, incest, and life of the mother AND also “elective” abortion services;
they would also have to offer on the exchanges an identical plan that covered (a range of non-abortion-related conditions) AND abortion services that fall under rape, incest, and life of the mother BUT NOT “elective” abortion services.
But that would still allow insurance companies to offer plans that wouldn’t be available on the exchanges. It’s just that they’d probably be expensive. Or are you saying that insurance companies would be barred from offering plans outside of the exchanges? That seems to be what you suggest here:
But I don’t exactly see how you drew that conclusion. Maybe I missed something along the way.
FlipYrWhig
Dangit, stuck in mod for excessive linking, I think.
@Mnemosyne: I think Iâm reading it the same way Joseph Nobles is:
For an insurance company to offer on the exchanges a plan that covered (a range of non-abortion-related conditions) AND abortion services that fall under rape, incest, and life of the mother AND also âelectiveâ abortion services;
they would also have to offer on the exchanges an identical plan that covered (a range of non-abortion-related conditions) AND abortion services that fall under rape, incest, and life of the mother BUT NOT âelectiveâ abortion services.
But that would still allow insurance companies to offer plans that wouldnât be available on the exchanges. Itâs just that theyâd probably be expensive. Or are you saying that insurance companies would be barred from offering plans outside of the exchanges? That seems to be what you suggested when you said:
But I donât exactly see how you drew that conclusion. Maybe I missed something along the way.
FlipYrWhig
Man, I’m having all kinds of moderation problems…
@Mnemosyne: I think Iâm reading it the same way Joseph Nobles is:
For an insurance company to offer on the exchanges a plan that covered (a range of non-abortion-related conditions) AND abortion services resulting from rape and other exemptions AND also âelectiveâ abortion services;
they would also have to offer on the exchanges an identical plan that covered (a range of non-abortion-related conditions) AND abortion services resulting from rape and other exemptions BUT NOT âelectiveâ abortion services.
But that would still allow insurance companies to offer plans that wouldnât be available on the exchanges. Itâs just that theyâd probably be expensive. Or are you saying that insurance companies would be barred from offering plans outside of the exchanges? That seems to be what you suggest here:
But I donât exactly see how you drew that conclusion. Maybe I missed something along the way.
Mnemosyne
@mcc:
This may be getting into the weeds but, as I understand it, the problem (at least for me) was that Stupak would not allow companies that sold supplemental policies that only covered abortion to be on the exchange. So if you were getting a subsidy, you wouldn’t be allowed to buy a policy that included abortion coverage using your subsidy and your insurance company wouldn’t be able to offer an abortion-only supplement to you even if you paid for it out of your own pocket. In fact, no insurance company that was on the exchange would be able to offer an abortion-only supplement.
The Senate bill (which, fortunately, is the only bill in play right now) only disallows you from buying a policy that included abortion coverage using your subsidy, but did not ban companies on the exchange from offering supplementary insurance that you could pay for out of your own pocket so, while it’s still bad, it’s slightly less odious because at least you can buy a supplement from an exchange vendor.
It’s a fine point, but I could see quite a few women getting caught up short when they realize there’s a big hole in their insurance coverage and no way to cover it.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
It’s the whole “identical in every respect” part. If you can think of any other way to interpret the language when they say that for every policy on the exchange that includes abortion coverage, they have to include an identical one that doesn’t include abortion coverage that would still allow for abortion-only supplements to be sold on the exchange, please do.
FlipYrWhig
@mcc:
So in essence it would be possible to buy a policy that covered abortion services (if you weren’t being subsidized), but it wouldn’t be possible for companies to sell them?
maus
@kay:
Sounds like the Dem imposter contingent found a new dumb strategy after their PUMA idea crashed and burned.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@kay:
This is why
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: I imagine it like this…
InsCo sells group policies.
InsCo sells individual policies.
InsCo sells a new category, “exchange policies.” It’s this last case that would have to follow Stupak.
Group policies could cover abortion services, even for “elective” procedures.
Individual policies could cover abortion services, even for “elective” procedures.
Exchange policies would be actually two near-duplicates, with one (a) that covered abortion services even for “elective” procedures, and one (b) that only covered abortion services related to rape, in/cest, life of the mother, etc. Stupak in the section you quoted says IMHO you can’t only offer (a); if you offer (a) you have to offer (b) as well.
I thought you might be saying that there would no longer be individual policies.
Joseph Nobles
So they sell the abortion rider OFF the Exchange. How would they know who needed one? Well, every person who bought a Exchange plan from them without full abortion coverage is a potential customer. So they send them all a mailing (they do have a mailing address) outlining a number of other supplementary plans (car, auto, worker’s comp, etc.), and among these plans is the abortion rider.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
I interpret it differently and I do think it would have made it more difficult for companies to offer supplementary policies even on the private market but, fortunately, it’s a moot point anyway. :-)
(What I actually think would happen is that a third-party market would spring up offering supplemental policies for “forbidden” things and then people could have the fun of having to deal with two different insurance companies to figure out who covers what if you have to make a claim.)
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: Oh, yeah, I agree that supplemental abortion coverage probably wouldn’t be available on the exchanges: companies would have to create two versions of the same policy, identical in every respect except for how abortion is treated. That way there’d be a kind of “conscience clause” protection for people who don’t want to support abortion. Of course your same company could be paying for other people’s abortions with your money that way, and that’s why there have been attempts to try to segregate the money.
I think the concern expressed by the GWU paper and elsewhere is that insurance companies, presented with the option that they’d _have_ to offer a policy that only covered a narrow range of abortions (as enumerated under Hyde) if they want to participate in the exchanges, would very soon _only_ offer a policy that only covered a narrow range of abortions, because it’s a headache to maintain two almost-identical versions with this one difference. So steadily that default would spread from the exchanges to the individual market and group plans, until insurance policies generally would cover only the Hyde exceptions (rape, in/cest, etc.), whereas currently many insurance policies cover abortion services more broadly than Hyde enumerates. And thus women would have their reproductive choice restricted further.
So if I’m reading the “identical in every respect” part accurately, the only way for choice to be restricted would be if insurance companies stopped selling–on the exchanges–policies that covered a full spectrum of abortion services (because they would conclude that it was more cost-efficient to sell only policies that covered a narrow range of abortion services, because Stupak _demands_ that those be offered, and why sell two largely redundant products?).
Ugh.
This is among many reasons why I’m not a lawyer.
asiangrrlMN
Good god. Cannot comment. Head hurts from trying to skip past all the makalakawiwi posts. S/he *almost* makes me long for B.o.B.
Cleeeeeeeek! I neeeeeed pie!
Zuzu's Petals
@asiangrrlMN:
Makewi ran away as soon as her mistakes were pointed out … per usual.
kay
@mcc:
The secondary effect of the Stupak Amendment is that we can’t talk about health care and instead have to talk about abortion, and exclusively abortion, for weeks.
Bart Stupak and the rest of the loud mouth religious have once again hijacked any discussion of practical realities and reasonable compromise, for their own self-promotion, and the promotion of their religion.
I resent this.
Women’s health is more than reproductive issues, despite the obsession of the Catholic Church.
Thanks to yet another successful effort by religious, we have now discussed abortion longer than any other single issue in the “health care debate”.
The health care reform that Bart Stupak and the Catholic Church are opposing would hugely benefit a particular group of women, women in their fifties who are unemployed, never married working women or divorced women.
It would particularly benefit those women who chose not to work and instead stayed home and raised children, and then were divorced, because those women are essentially discarded in this country.
So why aren’t we talking about those women? Because Bart Stupak and the Catholic Church insist we only talk about women’s health as it relates to reproduction.
And that should tell us something.
kay
I owe Stupak, because this has been clarifying, for me.
The Big Primal Fear for women regarding “choice” is this: if single-issue anti-abortion lobbyists prevail, and a decision has to be made, women will come second in any analysis.
We have some facts to support this: south and central American countries, where single-issue anti-abortion lobbyists have prevailed have made decisions where women came second: the case where the incest victim ( a little girl) was forced to carry the baby to term, the case where the pregnant woman with cancer was denied life-saving treatment, to protect the fetus she was carrying.
So it’s not irrational for us to worry. This is happening, today.
And when I look at the priorities of single issue anti-abortion lobbyists in the US, in the health care reform issue, it comes really clear.
They’re willing to deny millions of women affordable health care rather than compromise at all on their issue. They’re making a choice, and women’s health comes second in their list of priorities.
And so I don’t have to wonder if women would come second if anti-abortion religious prevail in this country, and they’re put in charge of those decisions. They just told me. Loud and clear.
They’ll deny millions of women health care, if it means they have to compromise on abortion, and that’s a clear indication of how they might prioritize any individual decision, regarding any individual woman.