« Senate Democrats Reach Health Care Compromise: Nelson Reportedly Signs On
Boxer, Murray Statement: We Were Happier With Capps, But Compromise Was Necessary »
Nelson to Support Health Care Reform; Summary of Reid’s Newest Amendment; States Get Power to Limit Abortion Coverage
Dec 19th, 2009 | 85 responses
I don’t know what fumes the folks on the Hill are living off of but Senator Harry Reid has introduced the Manager’s Amendment (#3276) and word is that Senator Ben Nelson, a Democratic holdout, will support the overall health care reform bill.
How they got Nelson:
Mr. Reid’s amendment includes major restrictions on abortion that were intended to win support for the bill from Mr. Nelson. Under Mr. Reid’s proposal, health insurance plans are not required or forbidden to cover abortion services, but there is a major exemption that would give states power to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold.
Mr. Reid’s amendment also includes a substantial increase in federal contributions to Nebraska’s costs of providing Medicaid coverage to the poor.
The Wonk Room has more on the abortion-related language.
Here’s a link to the full 300plus pages and here’s the summary of it:
Manager’s Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Providing More Competition & Affordable Choices for Americans
The Manager’s Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act builds upon the strong bill we already have. It demands greater accountability from health insurance companies while creating more choice and competition for consumers. It implements new programs to further rein in health costs and makes health insurance policies more affordable; and it improves access to quality, affordable health care for children and vulnerable populations.
Tougher Accountability Policies for Health Insurance Companies
Stronger medical loss ratios. Health insurers will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administrative costs and profits – or else pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans, including grandfathered plans.
Accountability for excessive rate increases. A health insurer’s participation in the Exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.
Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.
Patient protections. Health insurers will have to abide by a set of patient protections that, for example, protect choice of doctors and ensure access to emergency care.
Ensuring access to needed care. The use of annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted to ensure access to needed care immediately, and will be prohibited completely beginning in 2014.
Guaranteed opportunity to appeal coverage denials. All health insurers will be required to implement an internal appeals process for coverage denials, and states will ensure the availability of an external appeals process that is independent and holds insurance companies accountable.
Stronger Policies to Make Health Care Affordable
Innovation. Medicare will be able to test new models and, if successful, implement them via a stronger Innovation Center, Independent Payment Advisory Board, and other authorities.
Transparency. New requirements will ensure that insurers and health care providers report on their performance, empowering patients to make the best possible decisions.
Small businesses. A package of improvements include starting the health insurance tax credit in 2010, expanding eligibility for the credit, and improving the purchasing power of small businesses.
More Health Insurance Choices
Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide. This will promote competition and choice.
Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.
Improved Access to Quality Health Care for Seniors, Children, and Vulnerable Populations
Quality of care in Medicare. Seniors will benefit when additional health care providers are reimbursed by Medicare for the quality of care they deliver, not the quantity of services they provide.
Children’s health. Support will be extended for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the adoption tax credit. Foster care children aging out of Medicaid will be able to retain its comprehensive coverage.
Community Health Centers. A substantial investment in Community Health Centers will provide funding to expand access to health care in communities where it is most needed
Rural and underserved communities. Access will be expanded through funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other types of health care providers.
Vulnerable populations. A range of new programs will tackle diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and children’s congenital heart disease, will improve the Indian Health System, and will provide support for pregnant teens and victims of domestic violence.
Identifying Alternatives to Litigation
Testing new models. States will be eligible for grants to test alternatives to civil tort litigation that emphasize patient safety, disclosure of health care errors, and early resolution of disputes, with a provision for patients to opt-out of these alternatives at any time. Alternatives will be evaluated to determine their effectiveness.
85 Responses to “Nelson to Support Health Care Reform; Summary of Reid’s Newest Amendment; States Get Power to Limit Abortion Coverage”
Better than nothing; it is a democracy, must compromise & take bad with good
Looking forward to seeing the credit card business model (Find the state with the weakest insurance regulations and laws, move your headquarters there and force those laws down the throat of the American Populace) applied to Health Insurance…
This is actually much more acceptable as States will have an opt out option. One thing is still missing, States that opt out being allowed to use the money that would fund abortion coverage had they opted in for other healthcare areas since they aren't taking the money like those States opting in will be from the federal pool. Your still forcing abortion coverage with federal taxpayer money even if these folks State votes it down, that is, unless those living in States that don't opt in are given a tax credit.
It still would be better for the States to run their own programs though.
Wow, thanks, Jill. I was going to post on this — I'm glad I checked first to see if anyone else had.
I have been watching the proceedings on C-Span since 7 am. I saw the Democrats defeat two motions meant to obstruct a floor vote on the defense appropriations bill, and then I saw them vote on the bill itself. All but nine Republicans voted yes on the bill itself so the GOP gets to claim that they supported the troops even though if the preceding votes had gone their way there would not have been a vote on the bill itself.
Now Senate clerks are reading the entire 300 pages of the manager's amendment out loud, even though Reid had gotten Ben Nelson's vote, and he (Reid) asked if Nelson could speak, but Mitch McConnell immediately got up and objected, and the clerk said they had to read the amendment. So that's what they're doing now, even though the Democrats have their 60th vote.
“builds upon the strong bill?”
This list of things is basically the entire point of it. I'll have to wait until I see the full final language but they seem to address the vast majority of the criticisms.
Among numerous things that burn me up, is this belief/support/expectation held by some American taxpayers that not one single solitary penny that they believe they can trace to their tax dollars given to the federal gov't be used for a constitutionally protected legal medical procedure, while how many things I don't want a single dime going to (faith-based orgs, Viagra, research projects about which we already know the conclusions) continue to get my tax dollars.
Please, we have got to stop this charade.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Teen_Model, Real Patriot. Real Patriot said: RE: @TMV Better than nothing; it is a democracy, must compromise & take bad with good http://disq.us/6z1zj [...]
Jill, Nelson's restrictions maintain the long-standing Hyde Amendment, passed in 1975, that forbids federal dollars from going to abortion. If it goes a bit further – which remains to be seen – then this can be defended on the basis that the American public has moved right on abortion since '75. If you want an equivalent of a Hyde Amendment for the causes you mention, go for it — lobby away. No one is stopping you.
This is a health care bill, not a Viagra bill, not an abortion bill, not a cosmetic surgery bill, not a medmal bill. I resent the extent to which the wedge issue of abortion has been used and these are all distractions – I've been saying that for weeks, this isn't a new position for me so you misunderstand this “lobby away” interpretation you're spinning on what I'm writing.
The minute influence abortion has the insurance industry and medical costs should be enough to make anyone who sincerely wants health care reform realize why discussion of abortion coverage is a red herring – and I suspect it's at the root of why Nelson has agreed to the bill at this point.
You are wrong about “the American public has moved right on abortion since 75″ and I don't care what numbers you produce. There are myriad instances that demonstrate that pro-life people are in fact pro-life and do NOT necessarily want to see abortion made ILLEGAL. There is a big difference between being against abortion and wanting it to be criminalized and made unavailable.
I apologize for the vehemence on my response to you, but enough is enough regarding the flippancy being put out.
If people don't want health care reform, just for goodness sakes, say so and kill health care reform. But stop using abortion as the foil. It's despicable.
Thanks Kathy – it's a busy first day of winter break in the Zimon household and so I don't have time to respond as I'd like and give reflections but I hope to soon.
And I'll support that as soon as my tax dollars don't have to support a heath-care system in any state than my own and citizens of other states cannot move to mine the second they get sick.
Well said, Jill; couldn't agree more.
See, you and insurance companies have something in common. No worries though, your state could write in its own rules for pre-existing conditions.
then this can be defended on the basis that the American public has moved right on abortion since '75.
That makes no sense at all, redbus. Wherever the public has moved on abortion, abortion is still a legal Constitutionally protected medical procedure. Since when does equal protection under the law depend on trends in public opinion about the law?
The only pre-condition rule I want to see is that Red-Staters who have spent their entire life refusing to pay their fair share of taxes and denigrating government services cannot move to my Blue-State the day after they become sick and get government services and health-insurance.
“while how many things I don't want a single dime going to (faith-based orgs, Viagra, research projects about which we already know the conclusions) continue to get my tax dollars”
Jill if you want to understand you actually have to try and place yourself in their shoes. If you believe it's murder to abort a baby, then wouldn't you feel worse by funding it than if your money was just wasted? By having funded an abortion wouldn't you feel complicit in that murder? They do. I understand you don't and wouldn't expect you to change but isn't it possible to want something, feel right in your decision, and still understand a honest disagreement? If abortion is murder do you think there is an equivalence between funding that murder and making it possible for a man being treated for prostate cancer being able to have a complete life? Is there anyway possible for that argument to change anyone's mind?
What about my Red Sate that payes more than it's share?
Unless things have changed radically in the last four years, and I would be really surprised, all red states are welfare states.
“This is a health care bill, not a Viagra bill, not an abortion bill, not a cosmetic surgery bill, not a medmal bill. I resent the extent to which the wedge issue of abortion has been used and these are all distractions”
We've probably beat this topic to death, Jill. But I'll say something anyway….
If “healthcare” were the only angle on this issue (life of the mother or child, incest, rape, etc) then you would have at least a valid point. Those instances can be parlayed into a medical need – as could viagra and even elective surgery for that matter. However, that is not the “end game” in the matter. Liberals will use any legislative vehicle to make “abortion on demand” supported by the taxpayer. That is what most Americans stand against (if the polls are any indication).
You are right that abortion in this case is yet another ploy by the right to help kill healthcare reform. The left and the right are full of all sorts of tactics to stop what they don't want. I personally hate this bill – it's nearly useless. If they were planning on bankrupting the nation for nothing, I'd rather have single payer – at least then I'd get something out of the multi-trillion dollar tax increase we will inevitably face. I still maintain that ultra-strict regulation was the answer, but apparently I'm in the minority.
“Unless things have changed radically in the last four years, and I would be really surprised, all red states are welfare states.”
Go back and look at your link, Don.
Don't you think it one bit coincidental that most of the “red states” listed on the top of that list have Democratic members in key committees in both the House and Senate? Don't you think that has something to do with why they receive more money (via pork projects)?
Just look at West Virginia, for instance. Senator Byrd has brought more money into that state than even New York or California received. He is the most senior in the Senate. This is no coincidence, Don. But in the way it was attempted on your link, they make it appear that “red states” are welfare states. That is not the case. A more appropriate label would be, they are “pork barrel states”.
That's an aggregate statistic, which is a good way to lie with statistics. Here's another line from the book that you're quoting:
The average Democrat probably collects about twice as much “traditional (social) welfare” as does the average Republican.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wGtJ66o3EyIC&p…
but he goes on to say:
On the other hand, Republicans are more likely to benefit from “corporate welfare.”
Anyway, I just get tired of seeing Red-State/Blue-State when it's the people, not the states, that pay taxes and get welfare. Also, there seem to be (I can't find hard statistics either way) more Democrats than Republicans cheating on their taxes lately:
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/0…
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/…
In other words, they not only push for taxes as a substitute for charity, they also resist paying the taxes harder.
“Unless things have changed radically in the last four years, and I would be really surprised, all red states are welfare states.”
Wrong, big shock. Texas has always paid more than they have received. Your link showed a map when you go to the supposed source for said map you find this.
Texas taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Texas citizens received approximately $0.94 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 35th nationally and represents a slight decrease from 1995, when Texas received $0.95 per dollar of federal taxes paid (ranking them 37th nationally).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/60….
If you go here http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685…
You'll see that from '81 on Texas has always paid more than it received. And please remember this is the “source” for the supposed chart you linked.
My apologies, apparently you live in the one red state that actually isn't a welfare queen.
That's because they are and have been since the Great Depression. Despite the best efforts of the “Blue States” at dragging them out of the developing world and into the twentieth century, the “Blue States” have failed, the “Red States” if left to their own devices, would turn into another third world country in less than twenty years. On average the “Red Sates” have a lower GDP per capita, have a lower life expectancy, higher crime rates, worst health care, higher teen pregnancy rates (Excepting Utah which looks like a “Blue State” and West Virginia and New Mexico which look like “Red States”). So I would like the “Tenthers” and the would be secessionist to do the rest of us a favor and secede, the sooner the better. I am tired of having political arguments with people whose basic political philosophy is that “I would rather eat a sh*t sandwich than give a nickel to a nig**r”, which is the current base of “conservative thought”.
No to universal health-care, nig***rs might get something for nothing.
No to decent public education, nig***rs might get something for nothing.
No to free university, nig***rs might get something for nothing.
No to a decent social safety net, nig***rs might get something for nothing.
“My apologies, apparently you live in the one red state that actually isn't a welfare queen.”
Wow now I feel all warm and fuzzy since that really comes off as so sincere.
“That's because they are and have been since the Great Depression. Despite the best efforts of the “Blue States” at dragging them out of the developing world and into the twentieth century”
Man that shows a remarkable ignorance of reality. The reason they are net costs is in large part because they are farm states. Farms as in farm subsidies, low population densities, low profit margin. Also consider a stat like Wyoming. Pop of 1 mil in a very large state. How much do the Feds spend on wyoming's roads? A crap load I'm sure and so what? They were put there for national defence reasons and those reasons are still good. We assess the cost to that State, but that is a national cost. All the money spent on military bases gets figured in and sure it's a bonus to the State but again it's a national cost. Not to mention some of the absurdity of deciding what is a red and a blue state. The entirety of the research was who voted Bush/Gore in 2000 and that's it. WV is a blue state forever and on the basis of that became red. BS. It's a union/welfare state and it's blue.
Your comment @9:38pm yesterday to me reads to me as one that is based on an incorrect assumption – that I don't respect democracy. I do respect democracy – it's how I was able to remain living and engaged in our country even after Bush v Gore and NCLB and the creation of the White House Office's office of faith-based and community initiatives (which I've written against numerous times – since Bush, since Obama and also in regard to my Gov., Ted Strickland, having the same office funded by my tax dollars that go to Ohio).
The assumption you should be coming from is that I accept the rule of the majority, even if I hate it. And then I find ways to work within the system to contribute and/or alter it and its outcomes. I do not actively work to demean our entire country by demanding that no one will get any better health care if I can't have my way. That is how I interpret what the GOP Senators and Reps are doing.
As citizens of a democracy, we simply do not get to have as much control as your comment suggests people should exert over other people or our government. That is my opinion.
I like the idea of ultra-strict AND enforced regulation if we're talking about the insurance and medical industries – is that what you meant?
But as for this, “Liberals will use any legislative vehicle to make “abortion on demand” supported by the taxpayer. That is what most Americans stand against (if the polls are any indication),” I promise you, I really have to disagree based on what I know from many, many women's advocates whose feelings of disappointment in regard to the current administration and Congress cannot be overstated. There is enormous misery on the part of many, many women on the so-called left (I hate labels) – I say with great respect for your respectful engagement here that I really believe your assertion is not reflected by the reality. I can't speak for the men so much in Congress or the men supporting the men (and women) in Congress, but I'm telling you, from my pretty broad experience w/an ear to very well-placed people who are expressing themselves where I get to listen, not a one would recognize what you're asserting as being something that's going on.
If anything, they'd say, “WE WISH!!!!!”
To the extent that your assertion is accurate, it's only been done so that the Congress could use it as that chip you accurately describe in the last paragraph. Now that might be part of the plan. But trying to get “abortion on demand” supported by the taxpayer, as an agenda item for “liberals” – no. It really is not and never has been on the list. That's a Frank Luntz kind of dream that disappears when you wake up.
“The assumption you should be coming from is that I accept the rule of the majority, even if I hate it. And then I find ways to work within the system to contribute and/or alter it and its outcomes. I do not actively work to demean our entire country by demanding that no one will get any better health care if I can't have my way. That is how I interpret what the GOP Senators and Reps are doing.”
I'll be honest I don't get how you see it that way. I commented on a small section of your post comparing abortion to viagra and made a comment about if you care at all about understanding an opposing viewpoint you need to try and put some effort into it. Has nothing to do with the majority or even our government but the people we see and deal with every day. Hell I'm not even pro-life and I can see that the idea of viagra being equal to abortion is missing the point. You compare what is at worst a waste of money to what many believe is murder. I get that you disagree, I guess I do to, even tho I don't consider myself in opposition, but that comparison shows that either you have made absolutely no effort to consider your opponents ideals, or you just could give a shit. Would either thing be good?
So, after reading all sides to arguments posted here, you still think that that's what's behind everyone's objections? Ironically, that's exactly the way discrimination works; you plop large groups of people into a labeled bin, assign hidden motives to them, and attack them as a group.
I simply said that the breakdown of your “red states are welfare states” assertion is flawed, Don.
West Virginia is 80% democrat, yet is a red state. Look at the party breakdown of each red state and then try to apply your logic. It does not work.
And you cannot possibly be serious when you conveniently marginalize and attempt to dismiss conservatives as racist. I'm nothing of the sort and I resent it. But you are the one batting the word “niggar” around as if it's kosher. Why is it that liberals use the word “niggar” so much?
Looks like the other four fingers are pointing back at you, bro.
Hey Jill.
I did, indeed, mean insurance and medical industries (including pharmaceuticals) and with a bunch of tort reform and other inclusions. Both parties cannot and will not do that because their pockets are lined from those industries. But it IS what we taxpayers (both liberal and conserative) should have DEMANDED.
I know you don't “like labels” and neither do I. But politically, we tend to fall into a category or two (or three). With that said, I believe that conservative groups stop at nothing to acheive their political goals. I also believe that liberal groups will also stop at nothing to acheive their political goals. I call the conseratives out as well when they cross the line. With abortion, Liberal groups do not want it messed with. Fair enough. Now they have the chance to “sneak” federal funding of abortion into the mix with the healthcare package. The liberal side likes to legislate through the courts, and the conservative side likes to legislate through fear.
As far abortion on demand, it is what we have now, so you cannot say it has never been on the list. Anyone can go and get an abortion for any reason. People like me, who think it is an issue of murder, feel that abortion should only be legal for life of the mother, incest, rape, etc. This isn't something I think to further me politically, it is a deep-seeded and passionate believe based upon my research and my faith. Since the Hyde amendment is already law, they should not attempt to repeal it by sticking it into another bill – that is underhanded.
“On average the “Red Sates” have a lower GDP per capita, have a lower life expectancy, higher crime rates, worst health care, higher teen pregnancy rates”
I have to ask what you were smoking when you stated that blue states have a lower crime rate than red states? The exact opposite is true when you compare CITIES, and not states. To take a state like Wyoming, a single murder would show up in that statistic because of lack of population. New York, on the other hand, can see 20 murders and not see the statistic change at all.
Crime itself may be lower because we like for people to actually work for a living. When you have the government handing out so much of other people's money in blue states, criminals may not see the need to steal since they can go down and get a free check. Also…. We don't depend on police as much as blue states do. If you break into a red state citizen's home, you are most likely going to be shot dead. I guess both sides have their good points, huh?
Dossier: Red-State Values
Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States
And for good measure:
Health Care the Latest Red State Failure
As I have said many a time, your average “Red State” is a want to be third world banana republic.
ROTFLMAO…
Pretty much…
When you get some white guy in the south whose net worth is south of zero and whose gross income barely gets him out of poverty year after year who keeps voting Republican year after year no matter what the Republicans do, there can be no other conclusion…
When you think “Red State”, you think Wyoming, I think Mississippi. Having said that, Wyoming is still a welfare queen living off the federal tit. It's an empty state, well real-estate should be cheap and it should be able to attract people, particularly young well educated people, but it doesn't and you know why, there is nothing there, and amusingly enough when a Red State somehow manages to attract young well educated people, said urban area turns blue, see Austin TX or Chapel Hill NC as prime examples.
But you are missing your own point, not to mention your interpretation of what I've written is that I don't know what it is to see it from the other side (I would argue that I do but not in this comment for lack of time – but I went to a Jesuit school and have had friends in the clergy stop supporting pro-life groups because of their failure to account for what you must provide if you promote that every conception must end in the birth of a child regardless of all else).
Here is where you contradict yourself, IMO. You wrote, “Hell I'm not even pro-life and I can see that the idea of viagra being equal to abortion is missing the point. You compare what is at worst a waste of money to what many believe is murder.”
Did you put yourself in my shoes before you wrote that? I don't read in that assertion that you did, because if you had, you'd think, “Hmm – I bet she's comparing how men are basically getting a penis subsidy and women are getting a vagina tax” – because that is in fact how many women see this comparison. You also would think about how abortion – no matter how many times you call it murder – is a legal medical procedure. Period.
Now – if you are in the Tiller's murder was justified because he murdered babies end of the spectrum, then for sure we have little else to discuss.
Considering “my opponents' ideals” versus not caring have nothing to do with what I wrote about this being a democracy. It doesn't matter if I anguish over abortion exactly the same way as “my opponents” do – this country is a democracy and a run by the law of people – not God, not only people who say abortion is murder.
If I'm not explaining myself well, that's my fault, of course. But I stand by what I wrote re: this is a democracy and we all live with rules and behaviors we don't support. To those who see abortion as murder, the legal medical procedure of abortion is one such thing.
I think the key thing that might prevent us from discussing this too much further might be that you say that what you believe is based (at least in part) on your faith. You can choose to ignore or not believe that many supporters of this legal medical procedure want it “on demand” but I have never, ever, EVER met anyone who believes in that. To me, that is a fabrication of Frank Luntz proportions. I do not doubt that people who speak about abortion that way see it that way. However, again, I believe it's like calling the consult that goes on between patients, relatives and medical professionals re: end of life decisions “death panels.” That's an insult to everyone and it's purely for impact's sake. That is how I feel about the use of this idea that being pro-choice is about getting “abortion on demand.” It absolutely does not reflect the reality of the who and why behind the medical procedure.
“Did you put yourself in my shoes before you wrote that? I don't read in that assertion that you did, because if you had, you'd think, “Hmm – I bet she's comparing how men are basically getting a penis subsidy and women are getting a vagina tax” – because that is in fact how many women see this comparison. You also would think about how abortion – no matter how many times you call it murder – is a legal medical procedure. Period”
Yes it's legal and so? I'm trying to put myself in your shoes and what I'm getting is someone who is pissed and maybe not being fair. You pick out a prescription for men, ignore all “female” treatments and are trying to equate to a “penis subsidy and a vagina tax”. Saying that's many women see it, well I'm sorry but many also don't.
“Now – if you are in the Tiller's murder was justified because he murdered babies end of the spectrum, then for sure we have little else to discuss.”
Huh?
I'll be honest with you I'm not sure you even read what I wrote. I am sure you have taken it different than I have meant to say the least. If you just want to preach to the choir go ahead. If you want others that don't have your same beliefs to listen that is something else. I wouldn't even of bothered with Kathy and I really don't know you well enough to know if I am wasting my time here. My point to you was a simple one that my have got lost and I should of done a better job in pointing out. If you want to bring two sides together, or bring someone to change an opinion, you have to start with some common ground. Comparing viagra (which you believe is a male perk?), to abortion puts the conversation, with those who believe abortion is murder, out of reach. If that's not an issue to you then so be it.
Last I checked, the country's population was over 300,000,000. I don't know what “white guy” you're referring to, but I know plenty of people who want greater entitlements so that they don't have to work.
I already pointed out the problem with aggregate statistics, and then pointed out the truth at the proper individual level, yet you persist using them. What aren't you addressing the individual level truth?
Maybe you would find it more reasonable to compare viagra to contraception, then? Viagra enables men to have sex w/o having to worry about, mmmm… infirmity; contraception enables women to have sex w/o having to worry about pregnancy (or at least worry enormously reduced).
And yet… And YET, ellis, those same people who want to make it impossible for poor women to get abortions also want to make it impossible, or as difficult as possible, for them to get birth control pills. They also want to stop or limit any mention of contraception in pregnancy prevention programs for teens. They also want to allow pharmacists and hospitals to refuse to dispense contraception or fill prescriptions for it. I'm certain that many within that group (advocates of criminalizing abortion) would love to outlaw contraception, period. Just like it was before Griswold v. Connecticut.
BUT… these same people (the ones who favor criminalizing abortion and either criminalizing or greatly impeding access to, contraception) will cheerfully and without objection (maybe even an off-color joke or two) support or at least not oppose making pro-choice women and men pay to guarantee that all men will be able to achieve an erect penis.
I'm sorry you feel that I've not read what you've written. That is unequivocally incorrect.
This reminds me a bit of a debate I once heard on the radio w/someone who thought that if people just “knew” what it was that homosexuals “DID!” then they would understand why it is wrong. This idea that if people just knew more, that it's a matter of a critical mass of information that makes people change their beliefs.
I feel that that's what you keep asserting over and over, when in fact, there are a minimum of two positions involved here when talking about abortion, and really many, many more (which is one reason the so-called studies and reports and surveys of Americans feelings about abortion keep telling us/showing us different things – because people truly respond differently depending on the nomenclature and the phrasing of questions related to this subject – it is that nuanced).
I can only say to you that my goal in this post and in my comments has had nothing to do with bringing together or persuading others to come closer to where I am or bring me closer to where they are. In my mind, this is more about what can we tolerate, as a society that is structured as a democracy. I have no problems with the common ground approach – I'm a big fan of Rosa DeLauro and less so of Tim Ryan but I have some personal connections to both and know that they are very passionate about their common ground efforts. That's fine.
Aside from that, however, it's a shanda as we say in Yiddish to be using abortion the way Stupak and others have tried and I do not believe it's in the country's best interest. Getting some kind of health care industry reform? That is in the country's best interest.
I do appreciate you engaging and I am, to be candid, insulted that you would stoop to suggesting that I haven't read what you've written, simply because we don't agree or have different tactics and perceptions. As most who engage with me on TMV I would hope would say, suggesting that I don't read and respond nearly all the time is the last thing most would say about my approach to blogging. I do stand firm when I feel it necessary to draw a line, but I read everything everyone writes in my threads. Always.
“BUT… these same people (the ones who favor criminalizing abortion and either criminalizing or greatly impeding access to, contraception) will cheerfully and without objection (maybe even an off-color joke or two) support or at least not oppose making pro-choice women and men pay to guarantee that all men will be able to achieve an erect penis.”
Since nothing in the proposal has squat to do with criminalization I'm left wondering what you are even talking about. It's like you are having both sides of the argument so you wont have to worry about missing your talking points.
Ummmm, uhhhh, okay…. then I will rewrite the quoted sentence:
“BUT… these same people (the ones who want to make it illegal for federal funding to pay for abortion coverage even if women seeking the coverage pay for it with their own money) will cheerfully and without objection (maybe even an off-color joke or two) support (or at least not oppose) allowing federal funding for insurance coverage to pay for men who wish to ensure that they will be able to achieve and maintain an erect penis at the critical moment.”
How's that?
“I do appreciate you engaging and I am, to be candid, insulted that you would stoop to suggesting that I haven't read what you've written, simply because we don't agree or have different tactics and perceptions. As most who engage with me on TMV I would hope would say, suggesting that I don't read and respond nearly all the time is the last thing most would say about my approach to blogging”
I didn't mean it literally and now think that it was inappropriate because it didn't pass on what I wanted to express. I said that because I felt that there was a disconnect between your response and my comment. That you were reading something into my comment that was not intended not that you were dismissive or dishonest. As you say you have no intent to bring people closer to your ideas so my comments were……………………………………………… unnecessary.
“BUT… these same people (the ones who want to make it illegal for federal funding to pay for abortion coverage even if women seeking the coverage pay for it with their own money) “
There may be some who take that position but I believe you are misrepresenting the position of those in the main supporting monetary restrictions. I see why those who disagree with abortion not wanting federal money fund abortions. As far as I know that is all that has been attempted so far. I have never seen anything that made me believe a woman couldn't pay for coverage with their own funds.
There is no “right” [sic] to a federally provided abortion. There is no “oppression” [sic] or discriminatory treatment or any other myth directed at or about women here. (It's beyond the intellectual level here and now to proceed to related matters, such as that the procedure in question is almost entirely elective and isn't in any way normally essential or anything normally related to determining what ought to be at the forefront of becoming a new entitlement, much less dishonestly claimed to be a “right.”)
What did we see in Congress and hear earlier? Activists on the fringe predictably (by some of us, at least) could not resist (they have little or no discipline) making this a political issue, and they have been among those on the Left who have been at the forefront of compromising and wrecking the larger overall health care “reform” effort.
Way to go! In yet another way, these people themselves have wrecked what they want and demand.
As to the rest of it, it is unseemly as well as demeaning and anti-Constitutional for the federal government to tell the states they “may” or “may not” do this or that, impudently as well as arrogantly and in an elitist manner, as if they are indeed a parent telling a child or other subordinate what they may or may or not do, according to they, Washington's greater (non-)wisdom. (No wonder they demand so much money and then want to impose all kinds of disgusting conditions on money given back to the states, like allowances coming with all kinds of disgusting strings attached.)
Abortion (and other health care issues, in fact, but that's also beyond many's reach here) should have always remained the state and local issue for regulation and government intervention (by state and local governments) that it properly should remain, if constitutional federalism and the Constitution were honored, not to mention respected and understood. (These days, we have to worry instead about relative damage control and doing less rather than no harm.)
Aw – now I feel bad! This is a one-dimensional medium no matter how hard we try to add bells and whistles, so it's just important to try to keep it as real in written dialogue as you might in person – that's all. It's why I don't use an alias and my personal blog is called Writes Like She Talks.
Joe is the only who has actually heard me talk but, I do really pretty much talk like I write, or vice versa.
Anyway – let's see what happens at 1am!
I have never seen anything that made me believe a woman couldn't pay for coverage with their own funds.
Well, then, you haven't seen the Stupak Amendment. That's the entire point behind the Republican and conservative Democrats' opposition to the abortion language as it stands right now in the Senate bill, that it doesn't go far enough. Requiring that federal funds not be used to pay for abortion coverage isn't good enough for these men. They want to reinstate the additional language that says a woman cannot purchase insurance that includes coverage for abortion even if she pays the premiums for that policy with her own money.
The language in the Senate bill right now is the Hyde Amendment language — it's the status quo. The members of Congress who oppose medical coverage for women want to push the language *beyond* Hyde.
I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. House Republicans, especially Bart Stupak, have sworn to try and get that harsher language back in.
“They want to reinstate the additional language that says a woman cannot purchase insurance that includes coverage for abortion even if she pays the premiums for that policy with her own money.”
You need to understand the reality. They don't want any use of federal funds to provide or to support abortion. That means, consistent with all the excuses Dems have sought for years to a much greater extent in claiming federal authority and desired results, that nobody can get abortion from any provider who takes even a penny of federal money. That means no abortions in the case of anybody who buys non-abortion-included insurance from any provider with any kind of federal assistance, arguably either to the purchaser or to any provider that is involved. It's that simple. Any touching by federal money taints things. There is to be commigling of federal and non-federal (abortion-okay) funds. It's that simple.
For now, anyway. It's not the final legislation, after all.
Laying aside any more sweeteners that are given to Dems to ensure passage in the Senate of the Senate bill, it's time to start looking at what's in the Senate and House bills, and what the House may try to get put into the final legislation that may be more appealing to libs 'n' lib Dems. (After all, where there is conflict or no match, there is contention and the chance for House members to demand their own sweetners, in addition to another round of these with Senate Dems for final legislation approval.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=938…