CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 07, 2009 02:15 AM UTC
127 Comments
Are you saying that changing the bill by adding the Hyde Amendment, is more important then potentially providing insurance for 96% of Americans?
The Hyde Amendment could block private insurance companies that currently cover abortion from participating in an exchange or subsidy program.
Why aren’t you upset about Hyde’s threats to kill health reform if everyone does not capitulate with his minority position?
No matter what happens, DeGette goes back to Congress in 2010. The Blue Dogs better realize soon that if someone needs to compromise, it is them.
His position is six feet under.
The Hyde Amendment is current law. The anti-choicers want language that’s more restrictive than the Hyde Amendment.
are well-taken.
In typical anti-choice fashion it is worded to be deliberately confusing.
.
It’s your party, you can cry if you want to. But if you’re reluctant to come right out and say what it is you’re advocating, isn’t there a message embedded there ?
.
I thought it was anti-American to have the Federal Government insert itself into the doctor’s office with us.
It’s the choice to have an abortion, which is not only currently legal in America, but a right currently protected by the United States Constitition. Your argument is that people who oppose the free exercise of a constitutionally protected individual right are justified in tanking health care reform in order to advance the obstruction of that constitutionally protected individual right? I just can’t imagine what could possibly be more un-American.
…dollars to end lives of the unborn? What about the Constitutionally protected right to life?
to life on the part of a fetus. Get appointed to the Supreme Court, and you’ll have a vote on that.
But you’ll forever be a lone vote, because it leads to absurd results (which also helps to explain whey the rest of us can rest assured that you’ll never be appointed to the Supreme Court). Many pregnancies end before the mother knew she was pregnant. That means that every newly pregnant woman who accidentally terminates a pregnancy she didn’t yet know about by having a glass of wine, or by otherwise living a normal life, would be guilty, at the least, of involuntary manslaughter. Your logic leads (as many women understand that it does) to regressing to a social condition in which women are reduced to incubators, without any independent rights once the incubation process begins. You may not understand how odious a position that is, but the majority of Americans do.
was settled by Roe v. Wade. Your supposed “right to life” is not in the Constitution.
American citizens have no real right to life, but tonight they’ll attempt to provide a right to healthcare and a penalty for not signing up.
that American citizens have never had a right to life: If they did, provision of universal health care would have been constitutionally required from the moment that such a right was identified.
But you’re not referring to American citizens, are you? You’re referring to human embryos, which have never in the history of this country, and possibly of this world, held the legal status of “citizens.” Citizenship is conferred either at birth, when a child is born to an American citizen or on American soil, or at some later point in life, through a process called “naturalization.”
If you’re going to try to use legal concepts to make rhetorical arguments, it helps to understand those legal concepts.
…is granted to “ourselves and our posterity.” The Declaration declares that all men are “created” equal, not “born” equal.
But really what I wanted to point out to you is that Americans do and have always had a right to life, regardless of you moronic rambling about universal health care not being a right since the signing of the Constitution.
Obviously you don’t understand the difference between a positive right and a negative right. The Constitution specifically enumerates the handful of positive rights granted to the government, which compels them to action. Other rights, however, such as life, and those outlined in the 1st and 2nd amendments, among others, are negative rights. That means that the government CAN NOT take your life, liberty, or property without cause. It doesn’t mean they must provide us all with free health care, no matter how much of a deadbeat we might be.
to your insinuation that abortion deprives citizens of life.
Yes, you’re right actually in calling me out on not distinguishing between positive and negative rights. I also noticed that you posted just seconds after me elsewhere on this thread an almost identical observation about granting cover to Markey. Apparently, you have occasional episodes of lucidity.
Fortunately for our sense of order in the universe, you ended your post with a reminder of how brief and shallow such lapses are.
facts, schmacts
I want you to address my strong feelings about something, and you go all factual and legalistic on me.
Strong feelings about something
I am advocating the protection of the Constitution of the United States, and urging my elected representatives to be true to their oath of office and uphold that Constitution.
WTF are you advocating BX? That the pope rule American?
That military cross their fingers when they take the oath of office? That religion is more important than that oath to uphold the Constitution….gd, we have already seen this week where that sedition leads to….
In one of the early constitutional cases after Miranda (and maybe it was Miranda) the Court held that a right to a lawyer which was unfunded was no right at all…that is why the MIranda warning includes the phrase “If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.”
I think the Hyde Amendment is unconstitutional, although I guess a case can be made that there are many rights which are unfunded….However, the individual states still have the right fund abortion, if they wish, or if they want to offer a state funded insurance for abortion for those too poor to pay…such as Medicaid does now in a majority of states….
It is a non-issue unless the repubs are trying to stop the states from funding abortion.
I really don’t like your religion, BX, and I don’t like it sprayed across important legislation….the death of which could really hurt my kids…..hence my anger.
The question is not should abortion be legal – it’s should the govt. run plan include it. Just because something is legal does not mean the govt needs to fund it.
The deal worked out with the Catholic Bishops and the Blue Dogs appears to be that all plans are restricted to no choice for women. Trying to read the press reports is difficult, but it sound like not even saving the mothers life or from the ravages of rape and incest is allowed.
There is a also push by the “conservatives” group to prevent any coverage for transgender people for anything. Politico
I agree with your conclusion in this specific instance, but the issue doesn’t boil down to a dichotomy between being legal or being illegal, with the issue of funding falling outside the scope of analysis.
First of all, there are (broadly) five possible federal legal regimes for abortion: (1) Constitutionally protected, (2) constitutionally prohibited, (3) protected by federal legislation (which pre-empts state laws), (4) prohibited by federal legislation, or (5) up to the states to legislate. Our current regime is mostly (1), with a small cut-out for (4) in the partial-birth abortion ban, and some increasing leeway for (5) after the fetus reaches viability.
If a right is constitutionally protected, then not only is it legal to exercise the right, it may be illegal to obstruct the exercise of that right. Blocking the entrance to abortion clinics is illegal because it interferes with the right of the clients to access that clinic. Refusing service to an African American is illegal, even in your privately owned restaurant, because it deprives that individual of his civil rights.
The issue here hinges on the question of whether the right to have an abortion is abrigated by failing to fund access to abortions. I don’t think so, but there is an argument that can be made on the other side.
this amendment would dictate if the private market offers abortion procedures or the abortion pill, right now over 80% of private plans cover the procedure. This amend would not allow insurance plans that offer the coverage to participate in the new “exchanges”. The other “Capps proposal” would of just not allowed federal funds go towards covering the procedure similar to the Hyde Amend- this amend goes much further. The exchanges are designed to offer a health coverage to lower income people, so basically only wealthier women can obtain a safe abortion if this amendment passes. Health Care Reform is suppose to increase coverage not take it away!
I hope the Stupak amendment fails, and we pass health care reform without this anti women amendment.
But I think it should be pulled out as a distinct vote. Let each representative vote publicly on this one issue with nothing else to cloak it.
Although we can guess the results of a vote about whether vasectomies should be covered by insurance (just like that “male enhancement” drug is and women’s birth control is not), the question can be rephrased as:
“should male genitalia and reproductive system be controlled by the Republican healthcare dictates too?”
I for one would like to see the legislation passed and then that provision challenged in the court. It is not an argument as much as a legal issue. The new factor is the mandate to buy insurance or be fined. Under that mandate, how funding for abortion is handled is different.
The mandate certainly adds a new wrinkle.
This Supreme Court is the last place to put anything except to uphold corporate interests.
the amendment goes much further than merely limiting federal funds (as per Hyde) and only under the government option:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
The WashPost article doesn’t have it quite right. The analysis I posted earlier comes from Reproductive Health Reality Check, which is no fan of the bill.
The amendment places no limits on women purchasing their own insurance, except that if they purchase through the Exchange system they’ll probably have to get supplemental insurance to cover abortion (because standardized plans eligible for subsidies must not offer abortion under the amendment). But I can see a lot of ways around that; the Exchange could, in fact, offer plans with abortion but restrict those plans from people receiving subsidies. Or they could list a plan with an abortion rider included. At present, only about 50% of insured women have abortion coverage; I don’t expect that to change much.
There are so many ways to minimize or eliminate the effects of this stupid bill, the first of which is the conference committee. There’s a reason it wasn’t a deal-breaker…
for the health of a woman. Why should women’s legitimate health care needs be directed by DC politicians?
Welcome to the sausage mill. It ain’t pretty, and you certainly don’t want a peek inside.
if we take the wind out of the right’s sails on this by more forcefully excluding public funding for abortion. I think DeGette et al are just giving the opposition something to rally around. Heck, for profit insurers exclude women who have had c-sections, now common as dirt, from being covered for child birth. Do many policies cover elective abortions as it is? And of course Hyde is already law. Why not just say “fine” on this one and leave the righties sputtering and looking for another excuse?
and that didn’t seem to take any wind out of their sails.
I don’t remember a time when yielding to the crazies helped anyone else. Stupak’s still voting against the final bill anyway.
It’s about appearing reasonable to the public who are mainly in the middle. Polls showing majority support helped activists keep the public option on life support in the first place. It does make a difference how we are perceived, even if it won’t change GOP votes in congress.
Appealing to the general and on average moderate public helps us do it without Rs we aren’t getting anyway. Helps us with weaker Dems who are watching the polls trying to figure out which choice hurts them least. Helps us add more Dems as we did in both special congressional elections this year. Just saying I think we essentially lose nothing by not drawing a line in the sand on this. Maybe we gain some public support that gives fence sitting Dems a little backbone.
And countering the whole pulling the plug on grandma and other lies did pay off in returning Obama’s approval ratings to what they were pre-crazies’ August attacks and that probably contributed to strong approval numbers for his idea; the public option. All the people willing to call their elected officials and the White House kept any idea of a public option alive. Remember, all the pundits declared it deader than a doornail a long time ago.
Except when calling into Limbaugh, looking less extreme on just about anything is now the better position outside of the remaining crazy town districts.
…people to purchase coverage for abortion with their own money for a small additional rate increase.
But I’ll take all the liberal infighting I can get. It’s entertaining, and every minute they waste arguing is another minute closer to the day when dozens and dozens of them lose their jobs.
In BR’s universe, people vote for politicians based on the quality of their griping about the other guy, rather than on any expectation of politicians making things better.
“Hey, remember 2005? Those were good times, huh?”
They’re going to vote for Republicans because they thought they taught Democrats their lesson in 1994 when they voted them out of office for trying to take over health care. Turns out they didn’t learn a damn thing, so it’s time for history to repeat itself.
Republicans had been out of power for forty years. Most people who knew what it was like when Republicans controlled the House were dead.
In 2010 Republicans will have been out of power for four years. People still remember what it was like. It kind of sucked for most of us.
But good luck with that slogan. We’ll both keep reminding people how things were in 2005, and let’s see how they react.
…they tried to take over health care. They’re trying it again, so you can look forward to the next big election for Democrats in 2022.
and whatever you may think of me, I’d hope you don’t think I’m stupid enough to believe that, so tell me what you really believe.
Hint: which part of the Contract with America, that almost everyone agrees was responsible for the Republican election, dealt with health care?
I’ll give you some time to read it over and report back. I’ll expect to never hear you discuss this stupid claim again.
Democrats lost because they had become corrupt. Republicans lost for the same reason, except it took them less time.
…can’t guarantee there wont be a good election for Democrats until 2022, but I know next year will be bad for them. And I didn’t say that the Republicans proposed an alternative in 1994. They didn’t need to. The fact that they stood up and said “no” was more than enough for the voters to sweep them into office, as you said, for the first time in 40 years.
I appreciate that you believe I “can’t be stupid enough” to believe…anything. I was under the impression you guys believed I was stupid enough to swallow whole just about whatever passed my ears.
favor major health care reform.
Once again, BR, you make claims completely untethered from reality. You’d be better off arguing that most Americans are wrong, and you are right (as weak an argument as that may be), rather than arguing the demonstrable falsehood that most Americans agree with you. Thank god for small favors, this country isn’t that far gone!
1) Time isn’t necessarily the most trustworthy polling firm.
2) Even I support health care reform. That poll doesn’t measure–in any way, shape, or form–support for what Democrats are trying to pass.
I’m going to change my signature to give you all a daily reminder of how this will play out.
If the Democratic bill fails, the Republicans will face the wrath of angry voters who face ever-increasing premiums, insurance company bureaucracies, and denial of coverage. The public may not have been clamoring for health care reform in 1993, but the momentum has shifted. The status quo is no longer acceptable to a majority of Americans.
The Republican alternative bill is a joke. It does not even prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
The voters will see through the absurd Ayn Rand libertarianism of the crowd that controls the GOP. The Republicans are on the losing end of this political battle, so long as people like the fellow quoted below are their comrades-in-arms (from the New York Times website):
http://prescriptions.blogs.nyt…
with this Washington Post poll showing that most Americans favor a public option.
But of course, an anonymous poster who is factually mistaken on a regular basis, and employs consistently faulty logic, is more reliable in his arbitrary ideological assertions than Time Magazine and The Washington Post are in their national polls.
Delusional much?
…election results on Tuesday night. 42% favor the bill now being considered: http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
And to ColoDem, if you’ve been reading the forum much at all today, you would see that I came out strongly against the Republican “alternative.” Maybe not for ALL of the reasons you are against it, but many of them. Both plans are a joke and mostly are pay offs to the insurance companies.
Right. Of the infinite spectrum of possibilities, 42% favor this piece of sausage, the gory details of whose making no one was speared. How many of those who don’t favor it reject it from the Left rather than from the Right? How many refuse to support a bill that has too little rather too much government involvement? Look again at the title of this diary, genius: Not all those who are withholding support are doing so on the basis of your particular ideological dogma.
I’m not even going to bother with the logical fallacy embedded in your assertion about Rasmussen: Like so many of your ilk, facts and logic just gain no traction with you.
is right twice a day.
for election results. When it comes to approval ratings, Rasmussen the only poll that consistently has Obama’s approval, for instance, in negative territory these days while every other poll shows the opposite. http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
Rasmussen has been the far outlier for weeks.
Does that make BR balloon boy’s dad?
2006: Republicans lose House seats. 2008: Republicans lose House seats. 2009: Republicans lose House seats.
Is there some history that you’re plugged into that I’m unaware of?
The funds for the public option ARE NOT GOVERNMENT funds.
They come from premiums paid by the insured.
This is so simple and obvious it makes me wonder if I’ve missed some reason for this contention….other than Republicans are jerks.
Where does the money come from for the dozens of new “grant” programs? Where does the money come from for the tax “credits” that are handed out to the people who (supposedly) can’t afford coverage? Ask old people if there was a cost when their Medicare benefits are cut to pay for it, just like Betsy Markey said they would be.
Making a childish blanket statement like “Republicans are jerks” just proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You’re just factually wrong, and the poster you’re responding to is factually right. Not right on opinion. Factually. I’m sorry there’s just no other way to say it.
The public option is funded ENTIRELY by premiums. It is an insurance plan like any other.
…the questions I posed? You’re saying that the premiums are going to pay for the hundreds of billions in tax credits?
can you try only lying about some things? Since Tuesday you’ve done nothing but lie and run away when you’ve been called on it. It might be fun if we made it into a game, “find the lies,” but here it’s like “Where’s Waldo?” when everyone is Waldo.
One of my daughters went to the dark side when she married Billy. They are outstandingly non-jerks.
But typically in this political climate the Republicans, mostly, the ones in Congress ARE jerks. Anything to stop progress or what the people want.
have to oppose the President at every oppty. How else would anything be his “waterloo”?
And Rush, Beck et all too- else how to maintain the ratings?
If, and I mean IFF the D”s hold at 58 + 2 I’s in the Senate in 2010, then in 2012 we’d have a chance to get to 60 or 61 +2 I’s.
I believe the House is safely D until 2012. A CFA2 could work- but not until 2012 and who’s gonna lead it?
It’s a major moral issue for most Americans, both those opposed & supporting. Lets have a discussion around it that is on that one issue by itself.
which is why the anti-choice side prefers sticking their legislation into unrelated stuff like this rather than attempting to pass it honestly.
Are you talking about the Bart Stupak amendment?
http://steampoweredopinions.bl…
Damn, Rep DeGette just hit the jackpot – by opposing this Anti-choice idiocy and actually doing what her district wants, she sinks the health care bill AND keeps Big Med/Pharma happy!
Now she can collect all those giant checks from the health care industry with an “apparent” clear conscience.
She’ll make a lot of noise about how awful the anti-abortion amendment is but in the end, she’ll support the bill.
She likes being part of the leadership and it’ll piss off too many of the Democratic leadership if she actually tried to torpedo the bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
And strong rumors that Pelosi has the votes:
http://www.politico.com/news/s…
Here’s the full announcement she just sent out. Note that she is not saying she will vote against the full bill.
after reading her withering criticism of the bill as amended (I assume the amendment passed, else why is any of this relevant), I can’t imagine her voting for it, unless she’s known to betray her most heartfelt causes.
they just hit 218
The movie that established “singing do-a-diddy-diddy-dum-diddy-do” as official army cadence should never be rethought!
Was this expected?
Maybe Pelosi could count: Sometimes its just smart politics to let the most vulnerable seat in a given state, in a conservative district, slide by with a safe vote, if that vote isn’t needed to pass the bill.
then again, Salazar voted aye…
She would’ve voted for it if necessary. But they allowed her not to since she’s going to face one of the toughest races of any incumbent next year.
But yes, please do primary her. We’d love that.
…the bill passed the House with 39 dissenting Democrats. If you have a similar % of Democrats in the Senate dissent, they would lose 15 votes. Now, that’s not going to happen. But being so presumptuous as to think Harry Reid can line up every single Democrat in the Senate to vote for a bill with a public option, is naive. Especially considering Joe Lieberman coming out publicly in opposition to any kind of public option this week.
This bill dies in the Senate like Cap&Trade. Moderate Democrats, Betsy Markey apparently not included, have taken yet another tough vote, falling on Pelosi’s sword to pass a bill that has no future.
is you take joy in the possibility of our not addressing the problems we face. You apparently want this country to fail.
Very sad.
My girlfriend of 3 years and I each have a close relative fighting cancer. My mom is also a recent cancer survivor, who may be dropped soon by her insurance company. My grandfather, a veteran of the Korean war, has spent probably 10% of all his time the last three years in the hospital. In fact, three weeks ago his leg was amputated, and just last night he fell and broke his back (at age 77). In addition, my mother and aunt are nurses.
The fact that you don’t believe this can be just as important an issue for me as it is for anybody else, simply because I oppose the specific reforms proposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid is completely ******* insulting. I apologize to everyone else for my language, but you’re beyond despicable.
You propose nothing to improve things. All you do is celebrate any delay or defeat in any effort to address our problems. I’m not saying that what is proposed by the Dems is perfect – by definition it’s not.
But unlike the 8 years of Republican control, we Dems are trying to improve things. And all you do is continue to say no to any efforts.
Start proposing some real credible change and I’ll reconsider. But to date I’ve yet to see that from you.
Also, I don’t support the most recent Republican version of so called “reform” either.
However, there are three simple reforms that will solve every single problem we’ve got. And they are all free. I’ve posted these elsewhere several times, but I wouldn’t want to make you go searching:
#1) Ban the practice of dropping or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.
#2) Remove all anti-trust exemptions for health insurance companies.
#3) Remove the federal legislative barriers that allow health insurance companies to avoid competing across state lines.
Call bullshit on me all you want, but this issue is as close to my heart as anyone’s.
the basic problem that the “free market” just can’t solve regarding the distribution of an essential but scarce resource: Affordability. As a consequence, it leaves intact the enormous externality associated with rising health care costs: A powerful damper on the economy.
While your suggestions introduce increased competition, and so do provide some brake on exploding costs, they leave intact the incentive to adhere to a supply and demand determination of profit maximization. Given the inelasticity of demand (i.e., health care is seen by most as an essential need), the price to the consumer remains exorbitant under your model.
Any who can afford the high price for health coverage will pay, by hook or by crook, which will come out of savings (and thus capital investment) and spending, which will (all other factors held equal) force the economy into a continuing downward spiral.
The problem with simplistic solutions in a complex world is that they lead to such systemic consequences as those I’ve described above. That’s why it’s a good thing you’re not a legislator, and it would be a good thing if you (and others like you) recognized how little expertise you actually have, so that you would be less eager to impose that dearth of comprehension on the rest of us.
Is it exactly what you want? no. It’s not exactly what anyone wants. That’s what you get in a Democratic system.
But it does include the three items above. It also addresses a boatload of other issues that should (no one knows for sure) help reduce costs.
So why are you opposed to the Democratic bill? If it’s because it does not do exactly what you want then you’re not credible in terms of how a democracy works.
1) Merely forcing companies to insure pre-existing conditions does nothing to insure those with pre-existing conditions: insurance companies would still be free to jack up rates to the point where those with pre-existing conditions would not be able to afford the insurance.
2) There is a separate bill already working through the Senate to remove anti-trust exemptions for health care providers. It still wouldn’t introduce significant competition into those markets where only one or two providers exist, but it will allow stronger oversight of those providers.
3) Many large health insurance providers already operate across state lines. Removing the current regulations means removing States Rights on the issue, and it also means a race to the bottom in the quality of care and honesty in advertising. This is a simple truth of the way modern corporations do business. Corporate profits would increase, but patient care would probably suffer – and in the end, better patient care is part of reducing costs.
…which also happens to be free. I would give the same tax incentives employers receive for purchasing health insurance to individuals. The employer-based system is one major economic boondoggle.
Tax incentives aren’t “free”; to the CBO, whether you use the word “incentive” or “credit”, the effect is the same – it reduces Federal money and therefore increases the debt. Most of the ~$800-$900 billion “cost” over the next 10 years in the current HCR bill is a tax credit.
And, to add to the BS, tax incentives aren’t why it’s so much cheaper to get insurance from an employer. Employers of any size negotiate group rates; those group rates are significantly lower than anything an individual can negotiate for the same coverage.
You’ve now provided four bits of advice on health care reform, none of which either alone or in combination do anything significant to affect affordability and accessibility of health care. And people wonder why the Republican brand isn’t selling…
…that the CBO would count on a certain number of employers dropping their employees (at their request) so that they can purchase their own insurance, meaning the “cost” to the CBO would be largely mitigated. In any case, maybe the better idea would be to simply remove the tax incentive for the employer and give it to individuals only. Then there would be a huge wave of people gravitating away from employer-based coverages.
I’m all for going away from employer-based insurance, don’t get me wrong. But giving individuals the same tax incentives won’t move people away from their significantly cheaper employer-based health insurance.
Any benefit from providing the incentive to individuals will be strictly “additive” to the current incentive.
Are you actually thinking about what you’re typing here?
n/t
I don’t care about your personal problems. The fact that you know someone with cancer doesn’t mean shit. Everyone knows someone with cancer. It’s a common disease.
My mother was a nurse. She gave up her dreams to be a nurse because it was the ONLY reliable way she knew to get decent health care. My parents pretended to be married for ten years after their divorce just so my father could stay on her health care.
These are real problems. And yes, on top of that my mother died of cancer, my father died of kidney failure, my grandparents fell and broke things JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE’S.
There’s nothing unique about you, and you have no right to gloat when people have no health care at all.
You don’t have the slightest interest in fixing anything. You’re worthless. Fuck off.
I feel very, very cold
Seriously- BR posts as a jerk too much. ANd it’s ez to conclude- walk, talk and quack like a duck- must be .
But we’re in blog land. Real people aren’t always like they are in blog land. I like to think that if you met BR in the chemo waiting room- seems like we’ll meet there eventually (unless a car crash gets us) – you would be abel to discuss the problem and solutions.
…trying to make out like I was a heartless piece of shit and that the health care system wasn’t important to me, and therefore I didn’t really care what effect the bill would have on anybody. But that’s complete crap. The entire point of my post above IS that I was just like the rest of you, that my problems were “JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE’S.” I appreciate all the baseless personal attacks though.
David: The Dem’s bill doesn’t include anything about anti-trust exemptions, and doesn’t include anything about insurance companies being able to compete across state lines. And it does include a government plan, which is bound to result in single payer.
Steve: The lack of elasticity of demand in health care is due to the lack of competition. Yes, people will pay virtually whatever they have to to get health insurance. But if they have dozens of companies competing for their money, the price will be driven down. And that’s where the rest of your argument falls apart, because there would actually be more money in the economy. Especially among “the rich,” because in the Dem’s plan, the people who invest the most into the economy would be taxed far more to pay for “the poor.” Just because you say you have the “expertise” and opponents of this particular version of reform don’t doesn’t make it true.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33…
And yes, the fact that you have relatives who’ve gotten health care doesn’t have anything to do with this debate. It just means that you don’t give a shit about other people getting care they don’t have, because “fuck you I got mine.”
Most people would learn from their experiences and those of others. Most people would say, “Hey, just imagine where I’d be if I didn’t have any health care! I’d probably be bankrupt!” You don’t. Lack of insurance isn’t a problem for you, and so you imagine the only thing worth doing is slightly improving your own coverage.
Hence ergo and therefore fuck off.
…that’s not the whole story.
is that you eventually contradict yourself.
When it’s pointed out that it does, your response is…what? That it doesn’t nationalize insurance companies? That it doesn’t send their executives to re-education camps?
is due to how highly valued it is. Elasticity has nothing to do with competition, as any Econ 101 course would have taught you. As I said, competition drives down price to an extent, but not to the extent that makes it affordable to most people, because the intersection of the supply and demand curves is indifferent to general affordability (it is determiined strictly by maximization of profit). Those products and services that are expensive to produce, and are indispensible to anyone who can manage to pay for them no matter how much of a hardship it is to do so, are priced by the market at very high levels, and inevitably out of the reach of a very large segment of the population.
Now, if you added in the right archetecture of subsidies to those who can’t afford health care, you would be coming close to a viable proposal. You would also be coming close to the bill that just passed the House.
As David pointed out, no, it is not exactly the bill you want. Nor is it even exactly the bill that someone with some actual understanding of the economics involved would want. But it is a bill that people with both an understanding of the economics involved, and an understanding of the legislative and political process, recognize as a move in the right direction.
What I was trying to say is that even though it is an inelastic good, people wouldn’t be forced to pay unnaturally high prices if there was competition. The inelasticity would still exist, but prices would be set by the market at significantly lower levels. My explanation was poor.
I also don’t have anything against affordability credits/subsidies when they’re given to people who actually need them. The current bill gives them to many people who really could afford health insurance if they made it their priority. I think the only substantial difference between what I think and what you think (aside from the creation of a public option) is the idea of a portion of the population being “priced out.” I have no problem helping people who need it. Have you ever seen the movie “The Pursuit of Happiness” with Will Smith? If you don’t work that hard for a living, you have no business receiving taxpayer money to subsidize your cost of anything, even health insurance.
So, because the Dems fail because of, yes, jerks like you, they will be thrown out. That implies the majority of voters are pissed off at the failure of the Dems to provide a solution for a critical need in our country. Which means Americans want HC reform.
Or, is it they’ll be thrown out because they tried?
Or, would they be thrown out for not trying at all?
You logically contradict yourself.
yikes! what a scary area to talk about. I’ll stay out thanks. You have to really know what you are talking about or you will offend a lot of people.
The amendment prohibits any policy, public or private, from covering any abortion. A total ban.
(and bluehotmomma)
The Stupak amendment:
1) Prohibits anyone who is receiving Federal affordability tax credits for their health care from purchasing a plan that provides abortion as part of its basic package.
2) Prohibits the public option from providing abortion in any manner.
The main side-effect of this is that any plan offered through the Exchange system will likely not include abortion coverage in the base plan.
Insured women covered by their employer will be under no restrictions. Insured women purchasing insurance without tax credits outside of the Exchange will be under no restrictions. Women who are covered by plans under these restrictions will need to purchase additional insurance to be covered for abortions, but will not be restricted from doing so.
My guess: the vast majority of women now covered by insurance will not be affected; those insured who qualify for the new tax credits could use the tax credit to pay for their abortion riders (irony of ironies…).
More in another post…
Last night and the early morning news did not have all the details yet. The absolute prevention of any plan to cover any abortion was what I could find last night.
I put this as the slippery slope for women. The continuing reductions of women’s reproductive rights and now the “a cell is a person” attacks combined with the constant attempts to return the U.S. to those days before 1960 for women is being supported by Democratic party members, including women. That is not right.
It certainly wasn’t a good vote. But it also isn’t the disaster it could have been. Let’s face it, it could have been patterned after the laws in Colorado that go after Planned Parenthood by making it essentially illegal to offer aid to any organization that provides abortion, regardless of how separate the finances are for abortion services.
If the vote was as close as the totals indicate, then 3 anti-choice Catholics on the winning side may have made the difference. It’s a disturbing thought that 3 people out of 435 can control – even in limited cases – abortion rights when the majority of that 435 actually disagrees with them. But that’s democracy – the worst system of government, except for all the others.
There is still a chance that this comes out of the final bill in conference – or that it’s ditched by the Courts as over-broad in its effect. It’s also possible that the Exchanges or the insurance companies involved go out of their way to advertise the various insurance riders in easy-to-understand ways, and that the effect of this bill won’t be as bad as it seems.
Until we don’t have to worry about this kind of idiotic legislation, we just have to keep fighting. The world still runs largely on fear and misinformation.
That is that low cost abortion coverage will be offered independently by the Insurance Exchange providers and/or other companies. Such policies would be isolated, subject to publicity, companies might be harassed. There will be no law REQUIRING abortion coverage.
Only 50% of insured women are covered for abortions. I’m sure these companies already get some pressure from the anti-choice crowd.
Besides, what are the anti-choicers going to do? Boycott a company that pretty much maintains a monopoly in a region? They can’t force a company to switch to the anti-choice public option – that’s prohibited by the terms of the HCR bill…
I do not understand your following statement:
Insurance companies can choose not to fund abortions; if they are in the Insurance Exchange, they can NOT chose to fund abortions.
But they can’t offer “basic” plans with abortion coverage to those with subsidies. In other words, all plans offered on the Exchange will have to have a non-abortion version. Providers who think abortion coverage is okay can package and promote however they want; states might actually require they package one way or the other. For example, they could offer “basic + abortion” as their main offering, abortion coverage not available to people using tax credits.
What I meant by my previous statement: in many markets, there are perhaps one or two providers. Many of them offer abortion coverage. Anti-choice advocates can’t do anything to these companies that they’re not already doing. Current employer-based coverage will not be any different under the reform – employers can’t (largely) move into the Exchange under the terms of the reform, so there is no push to change plan coverage…
In other words, it’s not going to get worse – it’s just not going to get better on equal terms with the current employer-based coverage.
This is how I see it. If a woman w/o insurance has to go to the public exchange to purchase it, with her own money, she will not be able to buy a policy with abortion coverage. The public exchange, as I see it, is basically for those who cannot get insurance any other way.
Now, in addition to buying the insurance on the public exchange, she may or may not be able to buy a supplemental policy, NOT on the insurance exchange, which covers abortion. She may not have the money or the policy may not be offered in her state.
PLUS, she will be mandated to buy insurance or face a fine.
Obama says he stops at Hyde, and the Senate bill doesn’t have Stupak in the base bill, making it harder to include.
Regardless, there was a good piece on NPR the other night reading through the fine print of Stupak. Insurance companies can offer abortion plans on the exchange; they can even offer, as I suggested, their base plan being one with the abortion rider attached – so long as the rider is detachable at the option of the purchaser… Further, states can pay for the abortion riders for everyone in their Exchanges; 17 states do this for Medicaid already…
it’s too hard offends me.
Not really- but c’mon – you post a new thread just to say you aren’t going to post.
Let’s face it – the health care reform bill isn’t exactly what anyone actually wanted – which probably means that it’s a good piece of compromise legislation.
Women’s rights advocates are rightly pissed at the passage of the Stupak amendment, but still, women have the most to gain from this bill. Women are, overall, less likely to be insured than men, so they will be covered in larger measure by the bill. Women can no longer have rape kits, C-sections, and generally LWF (living while female) used against them in their insurance rates or coverage eligibility.
People like me with pre-existing conditions now get thrown into the general risk pool. This is a huge boon for business and labor, as it frees the labor force to move around to find its best fit to job positions.
Small businesses also gain from the universal rate regulation as they no longer need fear their rates will be jacked up to cover the illness of an employee. And they gain new access to affordable health plans through the Exchange system.
Strained State and Federal systems also get some welcome relief, because they will not be so much the “dumping ground” for high-risk insured.
Medicare recipients gain better drug coverage, especially in the “donut hole”. They may, however, lose some choices as subsidies for Medicare Advantage private providers are withdrawn. (This isn’t really a Bad Thing, IMHO – if the insurers can’t compete with Medicare on a level playing field, why should we pay them more just to participate?)
This reform bill isn’t perfect – it isn’t, IMHO, the best we could have done. It costs more than it needs to (because we didn’t get strong enough reform) and it does less than it should (because we didn’t get strong enough reform). But, all things considered, it’s a damn sight better than what we have now. Congratulations to House Democrats (and Republican Rep. Cao) for taking the first step.
and the things they are and are not allowed to do. I know I would sleep a lot better at night knowing my tax dollars are going to a lost-cause war or two than to giving low-income people legal opportunities related to self-determination. I love America and how we can be so arrogantly and blatantly hypocritical.
FireDogLake is reporting that Rep. DeGette is putting together a coalition to vote down any final health care reform measure that retains the Stupak-Pitts amendment wording.
So the initial diary is not, apparently, wrong in anything except for its timing.
And, on reading some further analysis of the amendment, I have to admit it’s a little worse than I thought. The wording of a couple of the conditions and provisions (aka the fine print) is more strict than any other existing Federal law.
Hopefully DeGette’s coalition provides the pressure to remove the language from the conference markup.
that I did. I had no idea this was so restrictive. It’s stunningly bad.
Again, the HCR bill is largely going to affect those without current health insurance. The provisions are lousy, but covered women are still getting a lot they don’t have right now.
And, personally, I don’t think using North Dakota as a representative sample of abortion rider provisions is going to hold in states like New York and California that have large numbers of uninsured… The effect is going to be somewhere between the minimal effect the amendment’s defenders want you to believe and the panic numbers some pro-choice advocates are putting forward.
Mcjoan usually does her homework. When she writes on a topic, I tend to pay attention.