So, on to the Senate!
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Keep in mind that the "connector" is paid for entirely by the subscribers -- no more gov't money was paying for abortions than is now when a private citizen pays for his own insurance.
In the mean time, there were about 20 Democrats who voted for the amendment and yet against the bill as a whole. It's one thing to be pro-life Democrat -- you're against abortion, but for health care that, ahem, saves lives. It's another thing to vote for the amendment and against the bill. Those 20 or so: they should have abstained from one vote or the other.
After this major decision, representatives will be watching their district very closely to see how constituents react. So we must publicly show that voters thank those who worked hard for reform and are counting on representatives who voted "no" to deliver in the future.
Will you help make the case for reform by writing a quick letter to the editor of your local paper?
Get started by entering your zip code HERE
www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
But, it won't work. Your party has been poisoned by your national leaders, and it will only take a cheesy commercial of him and some vote counts on health care etc to show that the GOP doesn't represent New England values very well right now in Congress.
But I hope the NRCC gives him plenty of money, instead of spending it in productive places!
So - if he isn't acting more conservative due to his challanger - is he just anti-choice? Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican
As for Congressman Neal, I really don't know the answer, except to suggest that it's certainly more nuanced than either "all fertilized eggs must be carried to term or else!" or "for every three abortions, we'll throw in a toaster oven!"
Never mind, we do - Independents. I continue to give Cahill credit for the one bold thing he has done which is to no longer pretend he is a Democrat.
House Democratic leaders quietly stripped a single-payer provision from the House version of the healthcare overhaul Thursday. The measure would have allowed states to set up their own state-run healthcare systems, where local governments would have become de facto health insurers for residents. A Democratic aide told Roll Call that there was "consensus" to remove the provision, which was proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and inserted by a majority vote in the House Education and Labor Committee.
A Democratic aide told Roll Call that there was "consensus" to remove the provision, which was proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and inserted by a majority vote in the House Education and Labor Committee.
But look -- he's consistently ignored by leadership because he's to their left, but he's expected to come in line when they need him? He deserves as much -- if not more -- cajoling from leadership as the blue dogs do.
I hope they run again. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
Kucinich was willing to risk Cao changing his vote at the last second -- thus killing health care reform -- so he could make some headlines. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
You don't want Kucinich to vote his conscience, so he should fall in line, even though those so-called moderates are allowed to first water down the bill, then vote against it. Me, I want the party pushed more in Kucinich's direction than the other way. When the party rewards its right wing, it tilts away from its supposed values. Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?
It's not that I don't want Kucinich "voting his conscience", but I wonder why only he gets to do that. There were plenty of Democrats who believed that the plan did not go far enough. However, if all such Democrats indulged him/herself the way Kucinich did, health care reform would be dead for another 10 years or so, because that bill would have failed. If Dingell can force himself to vote for that bill, Kucinich certainly could have.
But somehow Kucinich regards himself as above compromise, or at least more in need of headlines. He chose to vote on the early side of a close vote, hoping that other liberal Democrats show more forbearance and focus than he does. We need more strong advocates like Kucinich, but if we're going to get anything done in Congress, what we don't need is more Kucinichs. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
Kucinich stands firm, and has cultivated a long reputation for doing just that. I suspect that other members of the caucus would agree.
Kucinich is willing to take the unpopular side on votes that lots of other Democrats would like to do as well but don't -- they don't want the heat. Kucinich's consistent votes when he was labeled anti-American for all intents and purposes during the first half of this decade earned him the reputation, as did his POTUS 2004 campaign.
Dennis Kucinich's strongest impact on American politics over the last six years has been not in Washington, DC, but in Iowa. In the 2004 caucuses, Kucinich instructed his followers to bypass other candidates whose records and platforms closely matched his own in favor of John Edwards. I don't know of any serious analysis that shows Edwards' platform as more closely aligned with Kucinich than Dean or even Kerry. One can argue over his move to Obama in '08, but his shameless move in 2004 made it clear how he rushed to compromise the one time he could have made a strong difference. ~~~~ Believe it or not, I have even more to say...
My thinking about the POTUS was him running unapologetically on the left, something Kerry, Edwards, et al weren't willing to do.
Well, at least the bill passed, now it's time to get it through the Senate... and then work to make it better. This is just the beginning of the health insurance reform battle... one that may very well get more difficult and important as time goes on. --- My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.
~Ryan.
From gpoaccess: HR 3962.
WARNING! This is the largest .pdf file I've ever seen. It's 1990 pages long, not including the title page and the TOC.
Given where we were only a few weeks ago, this is a major accomplishment. We'll have to see what comes out of the Senate, of course, but this is a major step forward for millions of Americans.
The passing of the amendment isn't simply that those covered by some public option will not get abortion coverage (which they absolutely should), but that women who currently have abortion coverage under a private plan will lose that coverage. It was a big and really disappointing concession.
Just as important, it's an embarrassment for the Democrats and their ability to get their shit in order. Notice how only one Republican broke ranks on any of the votes tonight.
I'm happy that the House voted for the health care bill, but if the final version further marginalizes what is so important for reproductive freedom (and also one of the most common medical procedures in the country), then it is hard to call this a complete victory.
Second, I'm not sure the comparison between the number of Democratic "no" votes and the much more unified Republican caucus tells us that the Democrats should be embarrassed because they "don't have their shit together." After all, the Democratic caucus is much bigger than the Republicans, to the extent that those who are left in the GOP are very conservative. Under those conditions, it's not surprising that the Republicans stayed more unified. It did them little good, because Democrats got a whole lot more out of this than the Republicans wanted, that's for sure.
39 Dems voted against HR3962, and it passed 220-215. Of those 39, 26 voted Aye on the amendment and No on the Health care bill: Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague.
64 Dems voted for Stupak. Ergo, 38 voted for Stupak and for HR3962. The question is: of those 38, how many would have voted against the whole bill had the amendment failed? The other part of the question is, had they really needed the votes, how many Dems who were "allowed" to vote no on HR3962 would have come over and voted yes (e.g. Kucinich)?
Without evidence of a whip count, I'm not willing to concede the meme that the Stupak amendment needed to pass in order for HR3962 to pass. And, I've buried the lede. Stupak passed 240 to 194. Speaker Pelosi did not need Neal's affirmative vote on Stupak to ensure HR3962 would pass, since Stupak's amendment was going to pass by a comfortable margin anyway.
PVI D+9 plus incumbency plus GOP national party acting like jerkwads equals Neal reelection if he seeks it.
This amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. It forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer.
This vote is a reminder that despite recent gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies.
See our previous post on this issue. Learn more from our national organization, NARAL Pro-Choice America.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment means women who currently have insurance coverage for abortion services could lose this coverage in the new system.
From reading the amendment to the bill, it seems to me like the coverage would be amended and not lost. Perhaps you disagree with the strictures on the amendment. Very well. But it helps neither you nor the cause to mischaracterize this issue. And the insurance companies whom, I assure you, would abort every third baby if they though there was a profit in it, will be going through a long shuddering travail upon the passage of health care reform: that alone is going to produce some outcomes that are not desired... What would you do? Would you put an end to the process because one of the outcomes is undesired? the end of the insurers travails will present us with something unrecognizable from that which we have now. If you think this bill is going to be the end of the story, you're not paying attention.
And they always will. Not because there are more pro-lifers out there (there aren't) but because most men and women who are pro-choice , excepting, of course, yourself, don't draw bright lines in the sand like you, apparently, do. Absolute unrestricted abortion on demand, for many people who consider themselves pro-choice ( and even the few women I know who've had abortions), is not morally defensible. Many who are pro-choice are entirely comfortable with some restrictions. Myself, I'd prefer to allow doctors to consider the health of the mother (including mental health) rather than the more stringent doctor certification on a pregnancy endangering the life of the mother as this amendment does. But if this amendment gets us any closer to universal single-payer, I'm on board.
You see, while I consider myself pro-choice, I would 'sell out women' in a minute, on the issue of abortion, if I thought it would lead to universal health care: Which reforms, I believe, would have the effect of reducing a great deal of unwanted pregnancies.... and make those pregnancies that are wanted more successful. No, not all, but womens health would, overall, improve greatly. That's a trade-off I would make. I may not have voted for this bill, as it stands, because of those issues of life or health, but I may have, just to make the trade-off... I'd sure consider it long and deeply... ---
"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer.... Bonus: Job Openings!!"
--Stephen Colbert
Not because there are more pro-lifers out there (there aren't)
This poll says something different. Of course, the polls showed most Americans in favor of invading Iraq as well, which meant that a majority of the U.S. population was just wrong.
See what happens! This is just one example. Women (with private insurance companies participating in the new system) losing insurance coverage for abortion services is only the beginning.
You expect too much if you thought the public (through its elected officials) were going to sit idly by while funding a public option...even if it included abortions on demand to end inconvenient pregnancies.
Pro-Choice is one thing. Paying for your "choice" on my dime is another.
Among the final changes Democrats agreed to was using the measure to repeal a federal antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.
I bet this gets stripped out in the final bill, but it is an excellent bargaining chip, and if it does go through so much the better. BMG: Reality-based commentary.
http://raymedeiros2010.blogspo...
from plannedparenthood.com The Stupak/Pitts amendment would: *Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion. *Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits. *Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars. The current compromise in the bill already strikes the right balance between pro-choice and anti-choice interests. -It stipulates that health plans cannot be mandated to cover abortion, but they can choose to. -If a plan chooses to cover abortion, the compromise stipulates that no federal funds can go toward abortion, consistent with current federal policy. - It ensures state laws regarding abortion coverage are not pre - empted, so if states want to pass further restrictions on abortion coverage, they can. This a significant win for anti - choice organizations. -Protects conscience rights of health care providers and facilities.
The Stupak/Pitts amendment would:
*Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
*Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
*Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.
The current compromise in the bill already strikes the right balance between pro-choice and anti-choice interests.
-It stipulates that health plans cannot be mandated to cover abortion, but they can choose to.
-If a plan chooses to cover abortion, the compromise stipulates that no federal funds can go toward abortion, consistent with current federal policy.
- It ensures state laws regarding abortion coverage are not pre - empted, so if states want to pass further restrictions on abortion coverage, they can. This a significant win for anti - choice organizations.
-Protects conscience rights of health care providers and facilities.
Short version: Christian Scientist faith healers must be reimbursed for their "services," as if they were actual health care providers. Bad for science, bad for medicine, bad for the patients.
http://www.latimes.com/feature...
It's bad enough that placebo-based medicine has made the inroads it has into modern practice. Paying for faith-based treatments makes it less likely to stop anti-science practices like homeopathy from being reimbursed by insurers.
The following is a Wikipedia version of the process:
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.
Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK-5), changed his vote to "present" upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted "aye" if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8) switched their vote to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.
On June 26, the Senate passed its version of the bill, 76-21. The bills were unified in conference, and on November 21, the bill came back to the House for approval.
The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215, with David Wu (D-OR-1) not voting. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June. Istook, who had always been a wavering vote, consented quickly, producing a 218-216 tally. In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes. Then-Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from "nay" to "yea." After controversy ensued, Smith clarified no explicit offer of campaign funds was made, but that that he was offered "substantial and aggressive campaign support" which he had assumed included financial support.[14]
About 5:50 a.m., convinced Otter and Trent Franks (AZ-2) to switch their votes. With passage assured, Wu voted yea as well, and Democrats Calvin M. Dooley (CA-20), Jim Marshall (GA-3) and David Scott (GA-13) changed their votes to the affirmative. But Brad Miller (D-NC-13), and then, Republican John Culberson (TX-7), reversed their votes from "yea" to "nay". The bill passed 220-215.
