Dems Pass Health Care Bill, 220 to 215

Update: 9:08 pm MT: The Health Care bill passes. With 6 minutes remaining to vote, there are 218 votes in favor. Final vote: 220 yes, 215 no. 39 Dems voted no, 1 Republican voted yes. House adjourns at 9:33 pm.

Now that it's a done deal, people will want to know what's in it, and what it means for them. A good starting place, with lots of links, factsheets and more:

Question: Did the Stupak Amendment save the health care bill? 64 Dems voted for the Stupak amendment. 39 Dems voted against the health care bill. Does that mean the Stupak amendment resulted in 25 yeas for the HCR bill? The HCR bill passed with only 2 votes to spare. Next question: Was the trade-off "wire coat hanger amendment" worth it?


While some fool is going on about malicious trial lawyers on the House Floor, we are waiting for the vote on the full health care reform bill, which should take place in the next hour. It's the Affordable Health Care for America Now Act. The Dems need 218 votes. The Dems think they have them. [More...]

More sour grapes from Republicans on a motion to recommit the Republican bill. Making more sense, Rep. Lloyd Duggett:

"Now at this time for a historic choice—as the Republicans again side with insurance monopolies, we choose to strengthen Medicare, we choose to stand up for the millions of struggling families, who have been denied health access for far too long. Our Democratic plan is a lifesaver for 12 times as many Americans and a dollar saver—responsibly reducing the national debt by $36 billion more than this Republican false choice."

Love how the Republicans talk about choice, freedom and living in a free country but have no problem denying women the right to choose an abortion. Are they just stupid about how inconsistent that is?

Update: Rep. Diana DeGette on passage of health care bill:

Quality health care should not be the privilege of the fortunate few, but rather the right of every American.

“The historic passage of our health insurance reform bill is a win for all Americans. It will vastly improve competition in the health insurance market and rein in rising costs for the American consumer. Under our plan, Americans will be offered a true choice of health insurance plans, and a public option will be available as an alternative choice to the private insurance plans.”

Thanks to Rep. DeGette for leading the unsuccessful fight against the Stupak Amendment. I hope she fights as hard to keep it out of the final House-Senate conference bill.

The words you will hear the most tomorrow: Historic and landmark. But for the wire coat hanger amendment, that might be true.

< Stupak: Amendment Passes on Recorded Vote, 64 Dems Voted For It | Late Night: You Can't Always Get What You Want >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What's sadder still is that Democrats (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    are doing the same thing - blithely looking to deny women the right to choose, and deciding that basic gynecological health care is expendable.

    Did you ever think you would see the day when Democrats would take up positions that used to be the exclusive province of Republicans?

    Please don't kid yourself: Democrats have no room to talk when it comes to caving to the interests of insurance companies.  Do you imagine that Dems decided all on their own that insurance companies would not be required to cover birth control or other elements of gynecological wellness?  It apparently isn't enough that insurance companies are going to get the bonanza of an individual mandate - they're also going to get the bonanza of supplemental policies for women.

    And I don't know who came up with the name for the House bill, but I'd venture to guess it will go right up there with the "best" of the Bush bills that were the antithesis of their titles.

    If the Democrats think they hold the moral high ground on this, they are kidding themselves.

    Too bad no one's laughing.

    Dems are more immoral than Repubs (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:00:14 PM EST
    on this.  Repubs didn't lie, too, about what they would do.  Dems did.

    True. At this point we can (none / 0) (#11)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:20:09 PM EST
    only shake our heads and laugh at the Republicans. Especially when they say things like this:

    "You'll be starting a civil war, you fascist tyrant!" yelled Andrew Beacham, 27, of nearby Falls Church, Va.

    Well Jeralyn, apparently the Dems agree (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:59:07 PM EST
    with the Republicans on denying abortion access.

    Yeh, attacking the Repubs on this (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    instead of the Dems is just ridiculous.  Anyone here who voted for an anti-choice Repub, please speak up.

    Of course, a lot of people here voted for the other anti-choice party. . . .


    only 64 of them, see my prior post (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:00:51 PM EST
    Or are you talking about Pelosi's agreement to allow the vote on it?

    "Only" 64? (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:06:47 PM EST
    What a badge of honor.

    Only almost one-fourth of the Dems (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    don't support the Democratic Party platform -- or the rights of the majority of Democratic voters.

    Any Dem who donates to or votes for them is no Dem, either.  Any Dem who donates to or votes for them is just as much of a joke as the Democratic Party today.


    What was Pelosi's rationale (none / 0) (#7)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:08:16 PM EST
    for allowing the vote? Did she think it would be defeated? Or was the vote necessary to get enough blue dogs etc on board to pass the whole bill?

    Pelosi had said (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    that she would not let a single-payer bill go forward because it would open the door for Repubs to bring in abortion, among other issues.

    That worked out real well for us, Nancy.  


    that was stupid of Pelosi (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:03:35 PM EST
    She should had let them vote on single payer. It would have lost by 150 votes and then folks could have decided what they wanted to do.

    Kucinich and Conyers (none / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:53:13 PM EST
    pulled the single-payer bill precisely because it would have lost by 150 votes.

    I really doubt this margin was good enough (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:19:02 PM EST
    to give momentum for the Senate. This should not have been so difficult.

    Good point. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:21:24 PM EST
    At least I know that my Senators will stick to it.

    That's all of two Dem Senators I can count on.  Big whoopee.


    Tough sell even (none / 0) (#14)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:24:02 PM EST
    after the Stupak sellout. I'm genuinely terrified to think what the Senate will do to this bill. The House was bad enough with the Stupak shenanigans and (thankfully failed) recommit attempt. Senate never even cared for HRC reform as much as the House to begin with. Yikes. Given that he's going to take the credit for whatever comes out of this process, let's hope Obama at least shows some actual leadership along the way. Now is the time to twist arms, cash in favors and so on.

    House Passage (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Pat Johnson on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:24:30 PM EST
    What is there to celebrate? The Dems are no different than the Repubs.  They have allowed the "fundies" to insert their religious beliefs into this bill and some women on both sides of the aisle agreed.

    Remember when the Obama supporters beat the Hillary group over the head with the Supreme Court possibly voting against Roe v Wade if the Repubs won?  Tell me the difference here if these types of laws and policies are voted in by the Dems who I thought would defend us and grant equal rights.  Both parties are nothing but shams and tonight proved that this fiasco had many authors.  Shameful.

    On the upside, my swear jar is so full ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    ... I can finally buy my cats a small yacht and might be able to get my own in a week or so.

    What a sick joke (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:46:39 PM EST
    64 votes for reactionary policies, and the whole charade resulted in only 2 more votes than the necessary minimum for final passage.

    Color me disgusted.

    And as far as the title of the bill -- "Affordable?" Really? How so? For whom?

    How much are my premiums going to cost me, and exactly how much medical care will they cover? Because that's all that matters. And I don't think I'm going to like finding out the answer after I'm forced to buy insurance from the Obama-subsidized insurance industry.

    One thing I would like to know is (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:48:20 PM EST
    who amongst did NOT know where Stupak, Taylor and those stood on abortion?

    The surprise expressed is dismaying to me in that many of you pretend to be well informed.

    As for whether the compromise was worth it, in my opinion, the question to be asked remains is there enough good in the bill? I will write a post on why I think there is in the House bill.

    Whether the final bill does is another question.

    For progressives, it seems impossible for me to imagine a HCR bill that contains the Stupak Amendment, mandates, the Baucus excise tax and no public option could possibly be acceptable.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    there's enough good in the bill but the final version after conference is an unknown.

    BTD, is the public option in jeopardy?


    It's always in jeopardy (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:55:08 PM EST
    The public option is already in the Senate bill (none / 0) (#44)
    by s5 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    It would take 60 votes to kill the public option, so it seems like a done deal. It will survive conference.

    But I seriously doubt there are 60 votes in the Senate for an abortion ban amendment. So now we have to hope that conference will strip out or weaken the Stupak amendment.


    I think that's probably right (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:08:26 PM EST
    The real question is whether we can get cloture. IMO we needed a stronger vote in the House to guarantee that.

    The filibuster is our friend (none / 0) (#69)
    by Addison on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:16:28 PM EST
    A question there is do the Democrats call the bluff on the filibuster and either (a) test it and watch it fail or (b) test it and then use it to have a constant news feed of the Republicans being obstructivist lunatics, the August Tea Partiers coming back into focus as they "support" the filibuster, etc.

    Or using it as a reason to just go the reconciliation route or whatever.


    We'll see (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:09:37 PM EST
    Crossing fingers and toes (none / 0) (#75)
    by s5 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:21:43 PM EST
    And appendix if I can spare it.

    I think it has a pretty good public option (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    No question this is big, but Stupak left a pretty bitter aftertaste.

    More in my post tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:00:15 PM EST
    but the obvious question to you is this - will there be a public option with abortion coverage if this bill is not passed?

    Will less well of women have any health care option?

    When you pull out the drama, what we lost today was a portion, an important one, of the health care coverage promised by the public option.

    I am pretty adamant in my belief that the exchanges are a bad joke that will effect few people.

    There are two things that matter in this bill, imo - the public option and the increase in Medicaid coverage. the rest of it is either bad or irrelevant.


    Well, (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Emma on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:11:31 PM EST
    since you'll never need an abortion that isn't covered by your government mandated health insurance policy, I guess you can afford to weigh other people's lives in the balance while you do your jr. punditry.  Instead of, you know, fighting for what you believe in, like reproductive rights.

    This is true (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:19:06 PM EST
    I won't need it. But theoretically, my daughters might.

    But that is no answer imo. The issue, as I see it, is did the final bill take away something that exists? No. And understand that not agreeing to the Stupak Amendment would have provided for no public insurance option at all - so women who need it would not only not have it for abortions, but for other health care needs.

    I think this compromise defensible.

    I understand others do not agree and think that killing health care reform should be the price for this.

    But let's understand one thing - your solution leaves these same people without a public insurance option for abortion too.


    Yes, well (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Emma on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:36:20 PM EST
    you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.  We're not talking about "abortion" -- we're talking about a fundamental right being restricted.  While everybody celebrates a victory.

    Tell me, if the bill had excerpted out money for treatment of sickle cell anemia, would you all be talking about "better than nothing" and all those African Americans who wouldn't be getting other health care because of the failed public option?

    I don't think so.  I think you'd see it for the blatant discrimination and denial of a constitutional right it would be, and you'd be decrying it.  

    As it stands, this is a health care bill that is facially sex discriminatory.  And we've known all along that it was going to be.  But equality for women, that's something you never once, ever, talked about in all the millions of words you've written about health care reform.  Amid all the "fight for what you want", women's equality was just never something that made it on your radar.

    Because, as it turns out, women's equality is an acceptable bargaining chip to bargain away because you clearly think something is more important than women's equality.  What is that?  Tell me, exactly, what you expect you're going to get for bargaining away women's equality.  Because I'll bet you right now on whatever odds you want:  you're not going to get it.  Medicare +5?  Don't make me laugh.


    This is nonresponsive (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    to my comment.

    If there is no health care bill, then how is the situation of my daughters changed?

    Unless you think it could have passed without the Stupak Amendment, that is what you need to explain.


    And this is (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Emma on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:55:20 PM EST
    nonresponsive to the point I'm making, which is one you don't want to address:  this bill is sex discriminatory.  For YOU that's a "ho-hum" moment.  We get it.

    Do I think the bill could have passed w/o the Stupak amendment?  Well, gee, I dunno.  Maybe if our allies had been working for what they say they want -- you know, women's equality -- enough pressure could have been brought to pass it without an anti-abortion amendment.  But, of course, that was never going to happen because women's rights are clearly the bargaining chip that men keep in their back pockets to throw away when necessary.

    You SAY it's what you believe in, but you never WORK for it.  So, like pols will be pols, I guess pundits will be pundits, and men will be men and everybody will cut deals using women's rights.

    Hey, it's not like we didn't have any warning.  This is exactly what happened with the stimulus bill:  Dems threw away women's equality for some claimed benefit that they never actually got.


    I get that (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:00:37 AM EST
    you will insult me in every way rather than debate my point.

    I won't continue such a discussion.

    Be forewarned, if you bring it to my threads, I will ban you from them.


    Whatev (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:07:06 AM EST
    Here's the response to your point:  We'll never know if the bill could have passed without the Stupak amendment because nobody is willing to fight for women's equality  -- professing their belief in it wholeheartedly while dealing it away and bemoaning a political reality they helped create by failing to fight for it.

    Would the bill have passed without the Stupak amendment?  You say no.  I say nobody cared to try and that's the problem.


    I do say No (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:16:32 AM EST
    Because those who voted for the Stupak Amendment and for the final bill would have no compunction in killing the bill.

    And (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:19:02 AM EST
    you may be right.  But the constant, unchanging, willingness to throw away women's rights created that political reality.

    Emma (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    I could hug you through the computer screen.

    Honestly, even with the abortion restriction (2.33 / 3) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    I do believe that this bill is better than nothing. With respect to abortion services, we will just retain the pathetic status quo. But this was a concession that shouldn't have been necessary. We escaped committee without having to deal with it. As to your analysis of what's important: I agree.

    Stupak made it necessary (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:09:15 PM EST
    As you said before, he practiced madman political bargaining.

    As I said earlier, let the Progressives take this to heart on the public option. Walk away from the bill if they gut it.

    Say it and mean it.

    BTW, Bart Stupak lied to no one. He has always been anti choice and he always said he would stop this bill if he did not get his way.


    The House barely passed it. (none / 0) (#107)
    by NealB on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:46:15 PM EST
    The Senate barely has a way forward. Safe to say, I think, the Senate doesn't have a way forward. Even if Reid chooses to ride this fight into early next year, it's hard to see how Senate leaders and Obama sustain focus on health insurance reform while unemployment keeps every one out of five or six Americans in fear of ending up on the streets. We're just about broken down now to where survival needs trump health insurance for 15% to 20% of the public. (I lost interest in health insurance about six months ago when it became a choice between paying my mortgage and other basic necessities were all I could afford.)

    What's left of the "health care reform" originally promised by Democrats at the outset of the Obama administration is unrecognizable. And when it passes, if it passes, it will be a fact, not an undefined aspiration.

    How will Obama sell something that is transparently not what even his most passionate supporters "believed in?"

    Big changes coming.


    Yeah. Especially since many of those same Dems (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:00:34 PM EST
    who voted FOR Stupak voted AGAINST the final bill anyway.

    And this is considered savvy strategy?


    Those Dems are not (none / 0) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    the issue and were never in the equation.  They were lost from the get-go.  They are irrelevant.  The issue was, is and remains the conservadems who voted for Stupak and for the final bill.  Those are the Dems who were willing to toss the whole thing if they didn't get their way on abortion.

    If you're a man it might be (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:16:03 PM EST
    a good public option . . .

    I did not know that the (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:27:23 PM EST
    only health care needs women had were for abortions.

    Who knew?


    Look, it already was a bad bill for women (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:36:50 PM EST
    and got worse today.  Your daughters will really, and not theoretically, have to pay more for the most basic care.  So you better be putting more in the bank for them than just college funds.

    None of the bills in the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

    Just wait until you find out what all those costs add up to for even the "standard" visit.  But at least your girls will have a guy to help them pay the bills.

    We're talking about all the women and girls who will not be able to pay those bills, and certainly not be able to pay for supplemental policies.  The result will be undetected conditions, and some of those will be conditions that will cause them to have lives of pain.

    And some of those will be cancers that could have been caught and will cost them their lives.

    This is no time to be snarky.  Girls and women will suffer because of this bill.  And some boys and men who love them will suffer their loss.

    Now isn't that just a laugh riot?


    None of that exists today (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:40:08 PM EST
    Do not see how my daughters are worse off because of this.

    They're worse off (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by Emma on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:46:21 PM EST
    than the men whose basic health needs WILL be covered by this bill.  You just don't want to talk about that.  Under this bill, women's basic health care needs are not covered while men's are.

    It's that simple.  THAT'S the baseline.  Not, "oh, well, they didn't have it before, so no big loss."  If that were really the case, why pass health care reform at all?  Because, after all, they didn't have it before so no big loss if they don't get it now.

    In fact, I'll say it now:  if this crashes and burns in the Senate and NOBODY gets health care reform:  oh, well, who cares, they didn't have it before.  No big loss.


    Saying it does not make it so (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:58:14 PM EST
    I disagree with your characterization of the bill.

    Then (none / 0) (#129)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:09:12 AM EST
    tell me how I'm wrong.

    Of course it does. I'm covered (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:50:44 PM EST
    for standard visits and some of the above.

    As I read the bill, and read analyses of the bill, it goes farther than the Hyde Amendment -- which was bad enough in restricting federal funds for abortions.

    The bill passed today allows private insurers to restrict coverage for abortions -- and watch for them to take away other items on the list above.  Again and again, we have seen in history that the federal government's lead in discrimination on race and gender is followed by the private sector.

    And, of course, the so-called public option will not cover abortions, and women will have to pay more for supplemental policies to the public option -- or be penalized and have to pay for that.

    Tell me:  How about an amendment that the public option will not cover prostate cancer?  Would 64 Dems vote for that?  Right now, I am so angry that I would. . . .


    This is incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:58:58 PM EST
    "The bill passed today allows private insurers to restrict coverage for abortions -- and watch for them to take away other items on the list above."

    Private insurers always had that right.


    But have they exercised that right (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:17:37 AM EST
    when signalled by the government to not try to get away with that?  No.  Now they got the opposite signal.

    We have seen it again and again -- the private sector watches for signals as to what it can get away with, and given the signal, it will.  I expect that my costs will go up more than coverage for the guys who are my colleagues.  And I already pay more, in my city, than almost anyone in the country.

    And at least I have group coverage.  I expect that the younger women in my family, unemployed or underemployed in this economy and without such coverage, will see their costs soar even more.

    Btw, after my daughter was laid off this year, but before she could get some coverage (which I help to pay, too), one of her "standard" visits to her ob-gyn cost more than $300.  

    The reason I told her that I would help pay for coverage for her, lousy as it is, is that I found out that she was getting hounded by creditors for that bill.  So she cancelled a followup visit and tests that her ob-gyn told her to get.  And the result of that?  Undetected cysts and complications that ended up costing a lot more, and I'm still paying off those bills.

    Just wait and see. . . .


    Hey your costs are higher already (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    they're just shifting the excess over to  a new supplemental all rejoice! (snark)

    It shouldn't be a problem for us to pay any excess though for a condition that requires BOTH sexes participation. After all, we make 77 cents on every dollar.


    The bill that passed last night, (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:22:34 AM EST
    thanks, to the Stupak amendment, prohibits private plans in the exchange from providing coverage for abortion; a woman buying private insurance on the exchange with her own money - without one red cent of federal subsidy - would not find one single plan in that exchange that would cover abortion.

    The solution, apparently, will be for her to spend even more money on a supplemental plan that is not in the exchange, that would cover this medically legal procedure.

    So much for choice, huh?  Still think nothing's changed?


    Obviously nothing has changed (none / 0) (#166)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:24:10 AM EST
    No such system is even in existence yet.

    A lot has changed, andgarden. (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    The ground has shifted just because the Congress has shown it is willing to sacrifice the interests of an entire gender.  If you think that will not have consequences, just for the groundwork that has been laid, you aren't thinking this all the way through.  

    And while I do not know for sure that it will survive the conference, you also do not know for sure that it won't.  But the groundwork is there.  The attitude is there.

    I guess I give you points for picking up the baton from BTD, but I don't think either of you will be able to sell the "nothing's changed" concept to the female members of the Democratic party.


    I said that it was bad policy and bad politics (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:32:22 PM EST
    On that point I still disagree with BTD. But I've decided that it can't be a show stopper, because the alternative is no bill, which I believe it worse. You can't unring the bell here, so what do you make of what you have?

    I don't think you quite appreciate (5.00 / 8) (#111)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:51:59 PM EST
    the uphill battles that have been fought just to have women's health care afforded the same level of coverage as the care men have enjoyed forever; if you did, you might understand the anger that these bills have generated, because we see them for what they clearly are: a step backward.

    And that the progress we have fought so hard for is being bargained away as if it means nothing is infuriating.

    That we knew that Stupak was moving forward with his plans to amend the bill in this way is not nearly as important as the leadership's response to it, which, at least for me, was unacceptable.  I don't remember where I read it today, but Stupak as much as admitted he was bluffing, which means that he's a better poker player than Pelosi - but women are the losers.

    Whatever anger you are seeing here is, I'm pretty sure, just the beginning.


    I tellyou what I do not appreciate (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:57:02 PM EST
    Your condescending tone.

    I appreciate very much the battle that have gone before us. Heck, I was a part of few of them.

    Just because I disagree that the Stupak Amendment should have been the deal breaker and that I agree with Pelosi's decision to not sink health care reform on this does not mean I do not know the history.

    BTW, I wish some of you would also be upfront about what you want - to wit - that the Stupak Amendment kill health care reform.


    No, (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:01:09 AM EST
    I think we want "fight for what you believe in" to include women's equality so that women never have to face this scylla and charybdis ever again.

    The "condescending" tone you're complaining of is women telling you that you aren't getting that.  Or even that this IS a scylla and charybdis that nobody but women have to face.


    Fight as you wish (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:05:09 AM EST
    But do not pretend to speak what I think.
    I'll speak for myself thank you very much.

    How about we compromise (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:06:04 AM EST
    since compromise is so much fun, and the Stupak Amendment stays -- but we get honest and stop calling this reform?  What we witnessed today was reactionaries, and a lot of them were Dems, and the result of giving in to reactionaries is not reform.

    Not for all.  And if not for all, then let's call it what it is:  Another economic edge for guys.


    If it has a public option (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:08:19 AM EST
    I believe it is reform.

    BTW, did you know that undocumented aliens are completely excluded from the bill? Men and women?

    Is that ok with you?


    Only for less than half the population (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:17:17 AM EST
    If it has a public option
    I believe it is reform.

    BTW, bringing in another group it excludes/short changes, does not change the fact it's discriminatory. ;)


    Of course not. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:21:41 AM EST
    Nice try.

    Exactly. And of course, Stupak is crazy (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:20:23 AM EST
    but what we saw today was that the madman was given leadership by the so-called leaders of the so-called Democratic Party, led by the nose by a nut.

    That's some victory.


    A very good friend (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:55:40 PM EST
    who has decent employer insurance has almost died 3 (or is it 4?) times from a female condition. Can you say bleed out? Last time she joked afterward she had a blood replacement.(Her husband and I weren't too keen on her humor) If the government doesn't support women's health care, this will not change. Some of what's in the bill could have prevented what happened to her IF the bill didn't treat women's health different from men's. ANY health care we need from abortion to testing should NOT be up for debate or bargaining chips just because we have a uterus.

    I do NOT want to look at any more health insurance plans where a visit to an OB/GYN will cost me more monthly in premiums (or the new one is pay off your deductible of 2500-5000k before the visit is covered). Where birth control isn't covered.  Etc . . . . I do not want only part of my body covered and I most certainly do not want anyone telling me I need to birth a baby or not. The line in the sand is hands off my body and treat me 100% equal.


    Ignorance about female biology, the body, period (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:28:08 AM EST
    Reproductive and sexual health is a huge area to eliminate so blithely.

    It's not "just" abortion (though needlessly selling that legal right on the block is quite enough, thanks.)

    What you don't know can -- and is -- killing millions.

    Do you think women who are impeded from acccess to abortion can afford decent pre-natal and post-partum care? Or to properly tend the infant and child, much less see them to the age of autonomy? The mortality rates of children under the age of 5 are staggering. Don't they deserve proper health care too?

    And if you think you're the first guy your daughters will be calling should they be persecuted for going to an Ob/Gyn clinic for ANY reason -- including contraception, abortion services, and overall sexual health -- I hope your health plan covers treatment for being out of your freakin' mind.


    Boy (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:40:13 PM EST
    The stupidity from some of you is incredible.

    I haven't read the full bill yet (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:42:10 PM EST
    but we women are not getting our parts covered from what I understand. I downloaded the bill last night to see if this was accurate.

    And quite frankly, even if abortion is the only denial, that's totally unacceptable. My uterus/choice is not a bargaining chip.


    My standard at this point is (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:25:13 PM EST
    "better than nothing."

    Soon to be the new tagline (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:01:09 AM EST
    for the Democratic Party; the only part you left off was the one that telegraphs that we're wrong to be upset that it's the new standard:

    "Hey!  It's Better Than Nothing!"

    It remains to be seen, however, whether it will be.  Better, that is.


    I've got two taglines (none / 0) (#178)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    ... that keep coming back to me.

    Sometimes you get what you can take; other times you take what you can get.

    On the flip side:

    Necessary, but not sufficient.

    Necessary, at least, gives you an opportunity to build towards sufficient.  Can it be done?  Don't know ... but no other strategy is available at the moment, so it'll have to do.


    I guess we're back in fantasyland (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:58:32 PM EST
    Take a look at the list of Dems who voted FOR the Stupak amendment and STILL VOTED AGAINST THE FINAL BILL.


    Tell me again exactly what it is we gained with the Stupak charade?


    That was expected (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    Notice all of the supposedly pro-choice Republicans who voted for that amendment? I hope NARAL is happy about that.

    Does NARAL even give a sh*t? (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:05:14 PM EST
    Last time I looked, they were nowhere to be found on this. Oh, and while we're at it, last time I looked, Stupak wasn't the House Speaker or Majority Leader either.

    It's pretty clear, we women are on our own from now on. The party platform may as well be burned in public ceremony. I'll be the first one to light a match.


    NARAL's ridiculousness bas been (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:07:24 PM EST
    manifest for many years now. Why anyone gives them money is beyond me.

    NARAL whup'n: HCR version of war on Iraq for 911 (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    If going off half-c0cked on NARAL/PP (name your choice-protecting straw(wo)man) everytime the Dems & Obama sell off more women's lives makes you feel good, lock'n'load Bub.

    If that gets boring you can do the other fauxgressive guy thing and mass-link to Jane Hamsher.

    Forget all the resources that are going from the Nat'l office to regional chapters that have to deal with trench warfare continually refighting a battle we supposedly won eons ago, and that beautiful minds, pro and con, like to point to on paper.

    Given the lack of affirmative fight from the NARAL/PP-bashers to protect women's existing rights from further erosion, I'd rather have them on the issue than pundits and pols.


    NARAL has stunk for a long time (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:38:51 PM EST
    If you do not know that. then you do not know anything.

    But that is par for the course on this thread.


    Umm (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:01:55 PM EST
    You might want to get out of your own fantasyland and understand that the important votes were the ones gained.

    To wit, who voted for the Stupak Amendment AND  voted for the final bill? When you count up 3, then you will see why Pelosi did what she did.

    In other words, 220-3 = 217.


    Eh? (4.25 / 4) (#49)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:07:51 PM EST
    If you think for one moment this isn't going to ingnite an intraparty war, you really are living in fantasyland.

    Let's talk when you grow a uterus.

    And now I think I'll go vomit. Thanks.


    I do not understand (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:14:02 PM EST
    your response. You said that the concession to Stupak and others was unnecessary because SOME of the people who voted for the Stupak amendment did not vote for the bill.

    I was pointing out to you that your analysis was backwards, look to the people who voted FOR the Stupak Amendment AND who voted for the final bill.

    Since there were only 220 votes for the final bill, and 218 were necessary for passage, as you should be able to deduce, the calculation was that at least 3 of those voting for the Stupak bill would NOT have voted for the final bill without having the Stupak Amendment.

    Now you can take the view that they were bluffing. I think not.


    When the House Dems. were being (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:44:16 AM EST
    "whipped" and Hoyer and Pelosi were opining before today they thought they had the votes, were they already figuring on vote counts for a bill including the Stupak amendment?  

    Shoephone (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    There was already an intraparty war. I think the side who believes that a platform ought to actually mean something picked up a few more supporters. Welcome to the underside of the bus though. We wish we didn't have to greet so many with "we told you so"

    In which case, Kucinich would have killed (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:07:20 PM EST

    and Massa (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:15:26 PM EST
    And maybe it needs to be killed. In my opinion, it should not be.

    But I can respect folks who vote NO for the reasons Kucinch and Massa have stated.

    Or who vote No because of the Stupak Amendment.

    But understand, that means killing the bill.


    Kucinich voted NAY (none / 0) (#161)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:32:41 AM EST

    I know. that's my point. (none / 0) (#165)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    Shoephone for Speaker!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:10:05 PM EST
    I mean, since you obviously have so much of a a better handle on how to get stuff past the House Blue Dogs, why not?

    I'd vote for him/her over Pelosi (none / 0) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    Then again given the option I'd vote for almost anyone over Pelosi.

    What I know is that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    today's horrifying and mortifying debate did not have to happen.  

    It happens every day (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:55:35 PM EST
    Are you objecting to it happening in the Congress?

    In a Democratic Congress, yes. (4.20 / 5) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:06:20 PM EST
    I'm used to it in a Republican-controlled Congress.

    But then, this tells us that with the hopey-changey bipartisan b.s., it still is a Republican-controlled Congress.


    I do not follow you (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:10:20 PM EST
    The debate happens no matter who controls Congress.

    I really do not understand your point.


    Not this debate -- not Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:39:21 PM EST
    taking the lead to destroy women's rights and lives.

    Tell me when you saw that every day in Congress.


    Every day Bart Stupak has been in Congress (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:43:47 PM EST
    he has taken the lead in that argument.

    Him and 63 other Democrats? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:02:05 AM EST
    In recent memory?  I missed that day.  Tell me when, and I'll go look it up -- and I'll be sure to assign it to my class, so that more may vote less stupidly.  

    I do have some UP students.  I can hardly wait for that class again.  I see an assignment coming on everyone's member of Congress and their records. . . .


    Your memory is faulty (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:06:22 AM EST
    Then jog it. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:23:30 AM EST
    Did you anticipate this showdown? (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:30:27 AM EST
    I always wondered why funding for abortions was in the House bill until this weekend.

    It wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:35:35 AM EST
    There was NEVER any federal funding for abortions.  NEVER.  The bill ALWAYS included restrictions on government money being spent for abortions.

    I think I need to look further for (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:57:21 AM EST
    better info then.

    Did not have to happen? (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:07:46 PM EST
    That amendment did not have to (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:15:51 PM EST
    come to the floor; Pelosi allowed it to.

    And the final bill would have failed (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:19:45 PM EST
    To me, this is the equivalent of (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:28:16 PM EST
    the push to elect anyone with a (D) after his or her name, regardless of whether they represent what I, at least, consider true Democratic values, vision and world view.  (Thanks, Rahm!)  How's that working out for us so far?

    I don't expect health care "reform" to be any more satisfying or successful than having a minority of so-called Democrats leading us around by the nose and forcing us to move to the right.


    Well then that is what it is to you (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:43:11 PM EST
    I do not agree.

    When you see me pushing for Bart Stupak or Travis Childers, let me know.

    To me, this is dealing with the fact that you needed the vote of Bart Stupak and others to pass this bill.

    In the next election, I will be urging a primary challenger for Stupak, as I always have.


    House Passage (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Pat Johnson on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:56:32 PM EST
    I hope you are correct but at the moment I am unable to share that optimism.  Whatever "tossed salad" comes out of that final bill, you can almost be assured that the Stupak piece will remain.  It's the bargaining chip the Right will use to assure votes from that side of the aisle.

    Celebrating on 3rd and long? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Addison on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:02:40 PM EST

    But nothing is actually done yet...

    Pop the corks, we did it!

    Did what?


    Barack Obama says from his perch of detached, objective analysis, "This is history." Yes, everything is history, that's just a truism, the future is what matters. This is like celebrating an 8-yard pickup that makes it 3rd and 13. We got sacked a bunch the first two downs! We still need 13 yards! It's ridiculous to dance just yet.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:04:58 PM EST
    That bill was passed. If it did not pass, this would all be over. So I think you are being unduly harsh.

    Easy to say, since it wasn't (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:12:03 PM EST
    your reproductive rights and gynecological health that were sacrificed to make this [gag] "victory" possible.

    That was the price Stupak demanded, and Pelosi agreed to.

    But I wouldn't be so so sure the Stupak amendment will get deep-sixed in conference, either; I'm betting it survives.

    That being said, you know I don't think this is a good bill, with or without the Stupak amendment.


    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:22:32 PM EST
    Your rights were not sacrificed either.

    You have all the rights you had before the Stupak Amendment was approved.


    I guess the question for me is, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:32:51 PM EST
    regardless of whether the Stupak amendment changes anything, why are Democrats putting their stamp of approval on a policy that is so restrictive and repressive?  

    And, if it doesn't change anything, why was it necessary in the first place?  Why wasn't Pelosi saying, "Bart, we already have Hyde, so what's the point of a separate amendment to this bill, other than grandstanding?"


    64 Dems did (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:34:29 PM EST
    Now if you re asking why Pelosi let the amendment up for a vote, seems quite straightforward to me - she did not have the votes to pass the final bill.

    Seems to me she (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    waited until the very last possible minute, when positions had hardened and the whip count was clear, before she gave in to the inevitable and allowed the Stupak provision into the bill.

    If you think the overall bill was important to pass, as I do, then she played this as well as she possibly could.


    I guess... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Addison on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:12:21 PM EST
    ...8 yards is 8 yards, after all. But given the various (amendment and final) vote counts I think ebullient optimism and celebration going into the Senate and conference votes is hardly due. It's kind of weird, actually, to see it. People are CSPAN-drunk and not looking at tomorrow.

    Stupak needs to (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:11:45 PM EST
    become notorious.  Stupak amendment = Hyde amendment-plus.

    I'd suggest a major effort to defeat him next election.  NO DEM should be able to get away with having their name on an amendment like that.

    Bart Stupak has been notorious (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:21:12 PM EST
    on this issue for anyone who actually followed it.

    this shock about Bart Stupak is incredible to me.


    I don't really see much shock about (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:28:46 PM EST
    Stupak in the comments. Just anger.

    Riiiight (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:33:09 PM EST

    Now you're telling us what we think (none / 0) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    You don't like that much when someone else does it to you. Please do not do it to others.

    Nope (none / 0) (#187)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:08:56 PM EST
    I am ridiculing the view.

    Shocked about Bart Stupak? Puhleeaze.


    While attention focused on whether (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:28:30 PM EST
    Pelosi could count on enough votes to pass House bill with public option, I read nothing detailed about Stupak or his proposed amendment, although there was vague reference to abortion funding being a stumbling block in House bill.  No details until Saturday.  Why?

    Agreed, and a sense of (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:36:25 PM EST
    feeling blindsided that the amendment goes farther than the Hyde bill. Stupak and the Repubs. weren't honest about what was in the Amendment in describing it to the public. The full text should have been publicized at the time he proposed it. Instead, we got a staffer describing it. As one of the Dems tonight pointed out, the Dem bill, (Page 246, line 11)already prohibits federal funding of abortion. This amendment goes further and in doing so, hurts low and middle income women. And it treats abortion differently than other medical procedures.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:38:30 PM EST
    I think Stupak was quite up front about what he wanted for months.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:58:21 PM EST
    Not shock (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    just determination.  He's been a PITA since the beginning, but now he's actually succeeded in screwing up something major.

    THis shock at other people's anger is incredible to me.


    And as surprising to me (3.50 / 2) (#173)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    is (a) the sarcasm about it, and (b) the misinformation about other aspects of the bill, so (c) is this source as unreliable on other matters?  That would call for a lot of rethinking. . . .

    You are as ridiculous as always (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:36:00 PM EST
    You are ill informed and quick with an insult.

    Have you figured out you do not know what you are talking about yet?


    You are embarrassing yourself here (3.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:57:14 PM EST
    as everyone can see that you started the ad hominem attacks on me for allegedly not caring about undocumented immigrants, even calling me a bigot.

    Sorry your team lost or something, but take it out on someone else.

    I am here to read others.  I am done with you.


    At least one Republican really blew it (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:20:57 PM EST
    with this vote: Mary Bono Mack.

    Let every man pick a part of the anatomy (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:57:34 PM EST
    that will require him to pay for a supplemental policy for coverage, or pay a penalty.  And let that be an amendment to whatever atrocity emerges from this Congress.

    But only if there is an exemption for male members of Congress -- the exemption being that I get to pick their body parts that won't be covered.

    Oh, and then I get the first kick.

    Let me pick an ethnic group (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:10:48 AM EST
    Latinos, who represent 90% of the undocumented population, and have them excluded from the bill.

    Do I get to take the high ground and call you a bigot for not caring about that?


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:17:10 AM EST
    You do.

    Of course, you'll have to keep the little-single-payer advocates out of that description, because what we wanted wouldn't have left anybody out on the basis of sex or race or anything else.

    But, everybody who worked very hard to create the political reality that single-payer isn't feasible should probably include themselves in that finger pointing.


    No single payer would not have done so (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:18:19 AM EST
    Undocumented aliens were excluded from every bill.

    Ah, that's my (none / 0) (#141)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:22:48 AM EST
    bad then, as I was under the impression that they were not excluded from H.R. 676.

    But, hey, they're no worse off than they were before, right?


    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:26:09 AM EST
    You make my point. Your deal breakers are not the same as other people's.

    And that does not make you a bigot or mean you do not know the history or anything else you are quick to accuse other people of.


    I didn't (none / 0) (#147)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:32:39 AM EST
    accuse you of being a bigot.  Nor did I accuse you of not knowing history, or even any particular history.

    I said:  you're not so committed to women's equality that you're not wiling to bargain it away.  I think that's manifestly clear.  Am I wrong?

    I also think you're not going to get what you think you're bargaining for so, again, women's rights will have been bargained away for no gain, just as was done with the stimulus bill.


    But (none / 0) (#144)
    by Emma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:27:32 AM EST
    PNHP says that HR 676 would cover all undocumented immigrants.  So, who do I believe, you or them?

    Illegal immigrants are still in the bill (none / 0) (#156)
    by suzieg on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:23:25 AM EST


    WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama and House Democrats scrambled on Thursday to secure the votes to pass a historic health care overhaul initiative, working to ease disagreements with rank-and-file lawmakers over abortion and illegal immigrants.

    Obama met at the White House with several Hispanic lawmakers who oppose any prohibition on the ability of illegal immigrants to use their own money to purchase health coverage in a new government-run marketplace.

    "He listened to us. We listened to him," said Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "We made it very clear that 20 votes in the Hispanic caucus" depend on the language in the House bill. Currently, there is no prohibition in the House bill against illegal immigrants buying insurance in the exchange, but the White House backs such a ban and one exists in the Senate bill.

    "I think that he got our message," Velazquez said.

    House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said later that she did not believe there would be any change to the House bill on immigration.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:33:13 PM EST
    they came pay with their own money on the exchange but they are excluded from the public option and from getting subsidies.

    This is really ridiculous.


    There was some discussion over the summer (none / 0) (#194)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:39:32 PM EST
    of whether even that ability would be restricted.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:41:46 AM EST
    and isn't that a lesson here.  Unless or until evidence of the opposite claim is provided. . . .

    Of course, undocumented girl immigrants get less coverage.  Ah well, they can just wait for those incremental improvements -- for those increments in their anatomies to matter.  At least undocumented boy immigrants have coverage for their increments.


    Again with the nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    You really need to keep up if you are going to act outraged all the time.

    Undocumented aliens were ALWAYS excluded from the public option and from receiving public subsidies.

    They get to buy on the exchange? Wow! Some inclusion.


    You really think (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    single payer would cover abortions?  Please.  It will be generations, at best, before the Hyde amendment mentality goes away.

    On what basis do you predict "the Hyde (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    amendment mentality" will go away?  Seems to me it is strengthening daily.

    The lack of federal funding (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    is not the change.  You are confident that a single-payer bill -- an actually bold move by Dems that would have made Repubs scramble more -- also would have prohibited this from the private sector?  How does your crystal ball give you that confidence about how a strategy would have played out that the Dems never have the courage to begin?

    All of this proves (none / 0) (#131)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:16:02 AM EST
    that there are some really nasty people in this country who often happen to be better organized than the rest of us.

    That is an old story (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:17:28 AM EST
    My Gawd, some "progressives" cheered for Travis Childers.

    I remember (none / 0) (#153)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:45:38 AM EST
    How do you know that I don't care (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:29:02 AM EST
    about that?  Nice try again.

    You do a post again about that topic, I'll be there again to say exactly what I think -- especially after the last year of being involved in the day to day of immigration law and understanding even more why we need to change it.  And I can talk then about the recent fight we won, of which I was a part, that will help some of my undocumented students now and in future.

    But I didn't see that part of the so-called reform come up today, and I understood that was the topic.

    If instead, this is an open thread, go for it.


    agreed on that (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:36:24 AM EST
    And consider that the child of a pregnant undocumented resident will be born a U.S. citizen. It's not right to deny that child pre-natal care. (Not to mention, according to the Republican anti-immigrant, anti-choicers, that fetus who will be a U.S. citizen upon birth, is already a person.)

    I thought only the Senate version specifically denied medical benefits to the undocumented. Was there a last-minute amendment?


    I meant in agreement with BTD (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:38:11 AM EST
    other comments popped up as I was writing it so it's not clear who I was agreeing with.

    Agreed -- denying prenatal care (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:45:13 AM EST
    to the unborn is appalling.  Did any Dem say so today?  (Seriously; I couldn't watch it all.)

    I will say that it was great to see the "widow's penalty" in immigration law killed this week.  Of course, now I have to worry that with this sort of leadership, it could come back.  But at least for now, we have made an incremental improvement in immigration law.

    And as I learned here, incrementalism is good.

    So gosh, at this rate, with an increment like this one that will help 200 women in this country now, if this administration just keeps it up, the lives of 800 immigrants -- legal ones -- will be better by 2012.  Maybe we'll get to a few hundred undocumented immigrants (I just can't call them aliens; they're immigrants, too) in the second term.


    cx: "unborn" in quotes (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:47:01 AM EST
    is what I ought to have done.  I dislike that term as much as "undocumented alien."  I know the latter is at least a legal term, but I hear it used in disparaging ways by the same people who are so fond of "unborn."  

    Let me ask for a link (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    since evidence to the contrary has been provided.  Please provide evidence for the repeated claim here that the bill has changed now to exclude undocumented immigrants.

    But don't even bother to attempt to apologize for the repeated attacks for what you think that I think.  


    Nuanced Response (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by daring grace on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    According to Bloomberg News:

    Under the House proposal, about 18 million non-elderly people, including millions of illegal immigrants, would lack coverage, the CBO estimated. The Senate Finance Committee plan would leave about 25 million uninsured, a third of them illegal immigrants, the CBO said on Oct. 7.

    According to Examiner.com

    Under a headline: " Democrats House healthcare bill will cover illegal immigrants"


    In fact, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 already accomplished this.

    Under CHIP, Congress lowered verification standards to simply allow anyone who claimed to be a citizen, and who was otherwise income-eligible, to enroll in certain federal health care programs as long as that individual provided a name and Social Security number that matched.

    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:31:12 PM EST
    Undocumented aliens have been excluded from the public option and subsidies from Day 1.

    If you need a link for that then obviously you have no idea about the issue.


    I listened to the Hispanic Caucus (3.50 / 2) (#198)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    who said all was copacetic.  

    Your issue is with them -- go make up stuff about what they must think, because you think you can see into the heads of all of us.  Really, there is a name for that . . . and it still may be covered under the health care bill, lucky you.


    IF the representatives who spoke (none / 0) (#176)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    yesterday are to be believed, more than one actually said it. Don't get me wrong...that doesn't mean it is IN the bill. :) But, I did have the impression that this bill was strictly for US citizens, or legal residents after watching the House argument.

    it is my sincere hope (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:01:42 AM EST
    that the scumbags, masquerading as representatives of the people, who voted against the bill/for the stupak amendment, have the bodies piled up in front of their office doors.

    the republican party has publicly demonstrated (yet again) that it doesn't give a tinker's damn for its constituents, that they will gleefully spend hundreds of billions to bomb and shoot people in afghanistan & iraq, but not one single penny to improve the health care of the citizens of this country.

    i tip my hat to them, for achieving a whole new level of indifference to the United States.
    absolutely stunning in their arrogance.

    the "democrats" who voted with them should be voted out of office, receiving zero support from either the party or the president, in their re-election campaigns.

    i'm sure the beltway "village people" will be just thrilled by this "bipartisan" bill.

    This is nonresponsive to the comment (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:45:36 PM EST
    it is responding to.

    As a general comment, it is clear that for you this was the deal breaker.

    That is your right.

    for me it was not. Just like the exclusion of undocumented aliens was not the deal breaker. Why?

    As I stated, does the bill do more good than bad? The answer is yes imo.

    What about ME? (3.50 / 2) (#46)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:07:23 PM EST
    I hear a whole lot of, "What about MY coverage" and how much with this cost, "ME".  Well, I am someone who didn't have any kind of health care coverage until I was about 25, when I first got a job after law school.  I grew up in poverty and I just didn't go to the doctor.

    As it turns out, I was lucky and healthy and didn't go bankrupt with an illness or injury.  However, perhaps all you whiners might consider this is about all those other Americans who don't have any health care access.  There are many millions without.  These people can't even go to the doctor because they don't have the money.

    I have good coverage now - and that won't change so long as I have a job.  This bill is about those without that luxury.  How about a little compassion.  Do you people not care about others? What is the limit of your selfishness and greed?

    I made that point (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:09:42 PM EST
    here, albeit far more politely than you just put it.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#60)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    if you thought that impolite.

    when you call people (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:29:49 PM EST
    whiners and say that they are acting out of selfishness and greed, yes, I'd call that impolite. :)

    fair enough (none / 0) (#89)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:32:10 PM EST
    I'll temper myself.  Thanks.

    Ummm get a clue (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:24:51 PM EST
    women are at least half (we are a majority) of those without regular health care. I'm one of them. Getting half of my health care needs covered is complete BS when a man gets his full body covered.

    Whiners need to have compassion? Fine. Nice that you have good coverage. Enjoy it.

    Selfishness and greed?! Give. Me. A. Break.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:39:10 PM EST
    I was misunderstood. Sorry.  I would support full coverage for all.  Women, men, everyone.  When I called people whiners, a name that I now apologize for, I was referring to those that don't want to expand access to health care at all.

    I think we are on the same side.


    Who the heck do you think (4.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:09:43 PM EST
    we are talking about?  Do you even know who are the poorest people in America -- the group without hope of getting to college, much less law school?

    Here's a hint:  Few of them would be named Eric.


    Cream (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:21:34 PM EST
    what?  I just want the best for all.  I mentioned that I am lucky only as a counterpoint.  I am fully behind helping everyone, especially the poorest.  Whether it be the rural poor or the urban poor.  It's all bad.  A big step to helping is providing health care access.

    You're so ignorant it ain't even funny (3.66 / 3) (#57)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:10:50 PM EST
    I worked as a self-employed contractor for years without any health care coverage. And now that I'm unemployed -- I still have no coverage. You're damned right this is about me.

    Get a freaking clue.


    In principle, even the worst versions (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:13:18 PM EST
    of this package should be a net benefit to you.

    Principal ain't reality. (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:26:00 PM EST
    Sorry, andgarden, but I'd prefer people not make assumptions about what will happen since they don't know anything about my medical history.

    If you can find a situation (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:28:30 PM EST
    where having access to affordable health insurance is worse than not having it, I'd be interested to hear about it.

    "Affordable" being (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    the key word here.  I don't have any sense that any of these pols and pundits and analysts have a clue what that means for ordinary people.  When you're living on the edge and barely able to pay your bills, 10 or 15 percent of your income ain't "affordable."  That's where this whole thing could crash and burn if it isn't done right.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    I just want everyone to have access to healthcare.  And you insult me?  I think I am on your side.

    Sure didn't sound like it from your post (4.00 / 3) (#77)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:24:20 PM EST
    I guess you didn't realize from your perch of being an employed lawyer -- with benefits -- that the person you were accusing of being "selfish and greedy" -- me, the now unemployed contractor -- has NO coverage. Yeah, I'm just so greedy, aren't I?

    I'm done with this entire thread. It's stunningly obvious that those of you celebrating tonight's outcome and looking down your nose on those who are angry about what transpired have no clue at all as to who it is that is actually uninsured in this country.



    Well (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    I wish you the best and I can assure you that it is my hope that you have full access to health care coverage at all times, and without regard to employment.

    I am pretty sure that is what this bill is about, BTW.


    ok, stop the name-calling (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:31:03 PM EST
    we understand you are upset, as are many here, but please keep it civil. The enemy is not in here, it is outside this thread.

    "All you whiners" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:41:57 PM EST
    isn't name-calling?

    I apologized (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by eric on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:48:30 PM EST
    for that.  Sorry, it wasn't anything personal.  I just was frustrated with people that don't want everyone to have health care coverage.  I think that I now have emotions under control.

    yes, you're fine now (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:06:35 AM EST
    thank you for the change in tone. Some others now need to follow your lead.

    I'm not trying to censor people's anger, whatever direction it takes, I just want everyone to avoid personal attacks against other commenters who disagree with their point of view.


    Break out the champagne, (none / 0) (#9)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:15:09 PM EST
    and the angry-letter-writing stationary. The abortion fiasco and the fact that this is somehow being billed as Obama's achievement, not to mention the weaknesses in the bill itself, are cause for concern. On to the Senate...

    I'm getting all too used to (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:20:18 PM EST
    not feeling celebratory when so many so-called liberals do these days.

    Instead, I'm feeling slapped in the face again.

    Oh, and kicked in the uterus, too.


    A truly sad day for women, (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:28:42 PM EST
    thrown under the bus for no discernable gain. Also likely a day that will live in infamy for those suffering from our lack of HCR. After the near-failure in the House, the bill will be utterly destroyed in the Senate. Either that or weakened to the point of counterproductivity and passed. A day of shame.

    Glad this part is over (none / 0) (#19)
    by NealB on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:35:39 PM EST
    Still, a mess of a bill. When it passes the Senate it will be worse. What comes out after reconciliation will be the POS almost everyone here's seen coming for months.

    At least it will be years before any of this crappy reform kicks in and forces me to buy insurance I can't afford that won't improve my health care. At least it's closer to being over.

    By the time it actually kicks in (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:43:21 PM EST
    I'll be close to medicare eligible. Between now and then, I think what we'll see are premium increases for healthy people and benefit reductions in high-end plans. If the final bill really provides almost everyone with health insurance, I'm okay with that. If it turns out to be just a cost and benefit containment measure, I'll re-think.

    I agree it's way too soon to know what the final version will look like. In my experience (limited to criminal justice bills) things rarely come out of conference as good as they were when they went in. Huge watering down and compromises take place.


    It won't be so much that everyone will (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:57:56 PM EST
    be provided with health insurance, but that everyone will be mandated to have it, with penalties for failure to comply. And while there allegedly will be certain things that all plans will be required to cover, whether one will be adequately insured such that one's access to care is increased, and whether that access will be affordable, remains to be seen.  I think we already know that women, at least, are going to be shorted on coverage unless they can pony up the cash for a supplemental policy. Which means that once again, the poor will go without.  I don't see how this could be taken as a good sign.

    This is no gift, not a chicken-in-every-pot kind of thing, unless you think we are the chickens and the insurance companies are the pots.


    This is the best point made (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:35:51 PM EST
    The mandate is where there might be a legal challenge to the Stupak Amendment.

    That is what I wonder about (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:43:16 PM EST
    and hope to see lawyers talking about. . . .

    We both had "the birthday" this year (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:30:05 PM EST
    (I think we're a day apart). We're talking 15 yrs for medicare amd we don't know how it's going to be. When do the mandates kick in? In CA, they're already revising plans and screwing women. CA of all places . . .

    My hope was the PO for at least basic care seeing as I'm self employed. But it seems only part of my body would be eligible . . .


    Exactly what I expect, too (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:46:16 PM EST
    except that I now also entirely expect to see Medicare messed up for us -- as we're close in age, Jeralyn.  Both born in the peak year of the baby boom, and we've been screwed by that for so many years now . . . and we're about to get screwed by it again, I bet.

    Conference (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 10:56:18 PM EST
    not reconciliation. If it was reconciliation, we could be sure it would be better.

    right (none / 0) (#37)
    by NealB on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:02:08 PM EST
    Conference, not reconciliation. If reconciliation is the only way to passage, I stick with my original bet that Reid/Senate will bail. If/when that happens, I'll be glad it's over.

    How did everyone vote? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:21:57 AM EST
    For the HCR bill, the Stupak Amendment, Boehner Substitute Amendment, and Motion to Recommit.

    Based on all the outrage over this bill, I'm not sure if the D's who voted YEA were just being lazy. I'm writing to my rep to ask him to explain to me why he voted the way he did if women's health was so sorely represented in it.

    "wire coat hanger" hypocrites (none / 0) (#162)
    by diogenes on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:44:52 AM EST
    Maybe some rich liberals like Soros can fund Planned Parenthood so that poor women can get all the abortions they want.

    In contrast, I am hoping Jeralyn will post (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:34:13 PM EST
    a link for direct donations to Planned Parenthood.

    Here's what I'd really like to know (none / 0) (#186)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    Do we really need anti-choice Democrats to have a Democratic congressional majority?  

    I think we need about 64 primary challenges to get started finding out.