Mobile version

Deal Breaker

by: ek hornbeck

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 00:01:33 PST        
| More


( - promoted by ek hornbeck)

Jon Walker and David Dayen, both of Firedog Lake are reporting tonight that the Stupak Amendment which virtually bars BOTH Private Companies AND the Public Option from providing coverage for Reproductive Health Care for Women will receive a Floor Vote tomorrow in the House.

As Jon explains-

Stupak's amendment, by not allowing a private insurance company to sell a policy to anyone if they receive any amount of affordability tax credits, would make it impossible for a private insurance plan that covers abortion to survive on the individual and small group market. Stupak has threatened to bring down the entire bill if he does not get his amendment. Rep. Stupak called all previous "compromises" that had been offered "unacceptable."

As David reports-

The Democratic leadership is making a bet that, if it doesn't pass, Stupak and his cadres will sign on to the bill (I highly doubt it; most of them are no votes on health care entirely); and if it does pass, pro-choice Democrats won't sink the bill entirely (also, I highly doubt it). I'm a bit surprised that it's come to this. Also, Stupak appeared to have lied in the Rules Committee about how the deal "fell apart," since he got what he wanted.

This is an enormous bet, and not a well-designed one either, in my view. The Democratic Party will tomorrow give a minority of their caucus an opportunity to amend a large health care bill that would effectively ban abortion services coverage in the individual and small group insurance market, essentially telling private insurance companies what they cannot cover.

Quoting the Washington Post, David continues-

The amendment is expected to pass with the combined support of more than 40 anti-abortion Democrats and virtually every House Republican. That likelihood meant that leaders of the much larger group of Democrats who support abortion rights were not happy to learn of the deal.

"There will be no abortion, not just with public funds, but with private funds under the public option, and that's not acceptable," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

House leaders met with that bloc of Democrats late Friday to try to quell their frustration., but the agreement makes clear that they believe abortion-rights Democrats will find it difficult to vote against the health-care bill even with such a restriction attached to it.

As far as I'm concerned this is a flat out deal breaker.

Health Care Reform with the Stupak Amendment is not worth passing and I intend to call the House Leadership and my Congressperson tomorrow to express that opinion.

I urge you to do the same.
ek hornbeck :: Deal Breaker
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Deal Breaker | 9 comments
Vent Hole (4.00 / 6)
Feel free to crosspost without attribution or link.

"I like irony except I find that if you just toss your clothes in the dryer for a few minutes you hardly ever have to use it."- ek hornbeck
This bill (4.00 / 4)
is already deeply flawed, passing this amendment would make it totally unacceptable. My blue dog representative has already stated he will vote no, I hope an am,endment like this won't change his mind. I hadn't called his office as of yet but I will later, as well as a call to Pelosi's office. Goddess, this country is regressive and repressive.

"By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes.", Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"
Where's my fkn robust public option? (nmi) (4.00 / 3)


"Mientras el trabajo sea una comodidad, un mecanismo de extracción de plusvalía y un arma de alienación, el sistema y sus miserias sobrevivirán."  -Peter McLaren
[ Parent ]
Where is Single Payer? (4.00 / 2)
This bill is a massive give away to the health care insurance industry and big pharmaceuticals. It does nothing to protect against DENYING treatment only that a person with  preexisting condition cannot be denied insurance. And at what cost? Does it stop insurance companies from putting these people in an assigned risk class which will make their premiums higher? NO, it doesn't. It does mandate them to buy insurance from these blood suckers.
 This is a greatly flawed bill and at this point should just be withdrawn and rethought, perhaps into two separate bills. One that regulates and restricts the insurance industry, even forcing them to be non-profit and making them subject to anti-trust laws from which they are exempt. The second bill should create either a government run insurance program , like an extension of Medicare, or a very robust public option insurance run by the government at low cost open to ALL at a reasonable sliding fee scaled, denying no one insurance and leaving medical treatment up to the medical professionals

"By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes.", Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"
[ Parent ]
Don't mistake bad legislation for good intentions (4.00 / 2)
From letsgetitdone over at Firedoglake:

The answer is that the bill's number one priority is not solving America's health insurance problem. It is, instead, to pass a bill that legislators can say is deficit neutral. That is "deficit hawkism," adhering to the ideology that prioritizes bringing tax revenues and Government expenditures into balance ahead of other far more essential national needs and priorities. In the case of health insurance and health care reforms, adhering to that ideology is not only mistaken, or stingy, or an instance of false economy, but given that it accepts the inevitability of hundreds of thousands of American deaths over the next decade, it is immoral. And its application in this legislation is also immoral.

Why isn't health insurance reform in the House bill made fully operative until 2013, since, if it were operative within a year, along with subsidies that ensured that nearly everyone would get insurance, it would save more than 70,000 additional lives in the first 3.5 years compared to the current bill? The answer is that it is Congress and the President placing the false standard of deficit neutrality over the next decade, above the moral imperative of ending fatalities due to lack of insurance.

The extent of immorality accompanying this choice is even more apparent, when everyone sees that we have not employed that standard to the bank and wall street bailouts, or to the Wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq. We prioritize some things above "deficit hawkism," just not the lives of more than 108,000 Americans over the next 3.5 years, and about 72,000 more over the next ten. In addition, passing this bill, with its "band-aid" period, brings with it the near certainty, if we try to revisit health insurance reform, of having to face a propaganda campaign emphasizing the idea that we just got through legislating reform, and that we therefore, ought to wait until the "band-aid" period is over, and the legislation with its public option plan, has had a chance to work without considering more reform. Looking at things from the perspective of these considerations, and the possibility of other and better alternatives, and not from the perspective of whether it is better than no bill at all; the House bill, because of its enactment of a "band-aid" period of more than 3 years, and its provisions that don't end substantial lack of coverage after that, is both immoral and intolerable. It needs to be defeated, and another bill needs to be quickly put in its place.



"Mientras el trabajo sea una comodidad, un mecanismo de extracción de plusvalía y un arma de alienación, el sistema y sus miserias sobrevivirán."  -Peter McLaren
[ Parent ]
The way to Hell (4.00 / 2)
is paved with good intentions. This bill is paving a 6 lane highway.

"By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes.", Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"
[ Parent ]
Its been aborted! (4.00 / 2)
If this does kill health care reform, the Democrats deserve to lose big.  
[ Parent ]
Geez, I thought the dealbreaker stage had (4.00 / 2)
passed, long, long ago.
I love Pluto (4.00 / 2)
 She is not afraid ti put it on the line and say what she thinks
Men Who Cause an Unwanted Pregnancy

Warning the pictures in this thread are graphic and disturbing but go to the heart of this debate about women's reproductive health. Why must it be only the woman who suffers the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy?  This bill will force women to bear unwanted children if this amendment passes. I would prefer that it went down in defeatt than see this happen.

"By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes.", Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"

Deal Breaker | 9 comments
 

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Contact Us

Seek




Advanced Search

Contribute to Docudharma
 

 
     

 

DharmaDocs
- Mission Statement
- FAQ
- HTML Help
- Dharmapedia
- Series
www.flickr.com

Action
- Fire Under Their Seats - Pt 4: Progressives & The Democratic Party
by: Edger
- Growing Discontent with Democrats & Access-Bloggers Leaves an Opening for Genuine Progressives
by: Archangel M
- This just may be our BEST chance to turn this country around!
by: tahoebasha3
- Zinn on Pressuring Obama and the Democrats
by: Edger

Powered by: SoapBlox