home

Text of the Executive Order on Abortion Funding

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 06:39:36 PM EST
Tags: health care reform (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's the text of the Executive Order on abortion funding that Rep. Stupak finds acceptable enough to change his health care vote. Key points:

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.

The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014.

[More...]

The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

On the new Community Health Center Fund:

Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language.

Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law.

Here's a question: Is it enforceable? It says:

© This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

Sounds like it's a repetition of what's already law or in the Senate health care bill. Question: Is it saying people in the insurance exchanges can get abortion coverage, it just has to be billed separately and can't be paid for with federal subsidies or funds?

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread: Stupak Deal is On the Table | Health Care Bill: What's In It For Us? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Text of the Executive Order on Abortion Funding | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Current Law (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    Yes, it is reaffirming current law and applying it to the exchanges.  People in the insurance exchanges can get abortion coverage.  It may be cumbersome (writing two checks) or HHS may develop some manageable work arounds.  States that choose to, manage to keep funds segregated.

    It's not really about the details (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:04:59 PM EST
    It's about the framing. First Democratic president to not only come out in favor of Hyde, but the first president to codify it through executive order. We women will not forget.

    Excuse me while I go throw up.

    I think this sums it up about as well (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:20:46 PM EST
    as anything I've seen:

    Dear American Women,

    I want you to know
    that I place a high value on
    your reproductive rights.

    They made an excellent
    bargaining chip.

    Thanks,

    President Barack Obama

    Indeed.


    Parent

    they have no fewer rights (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    than they did yesterday.

    all that statement says is that the healthcare bill changes nothing about government funding of abortions.

    Parent

    Not exactly true (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:31:47 PM EST
    The entrenchment of continuing to endanger the lives of women and keep them down trodden is a change up.

    Parent
    Well, the bill doesn't affect (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:33:33 PM EST
    CH"s ability to get an abortion.

    Parent
    Gee, he didn't stop (4.25 / 4) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    the rain, either.  Mad at him about that, too?

    Parent
    did you expect (3.25 / 4) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    the healthcare bill to expand abortions rights?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:42:23 PM EST
    but I didnt expect Obama to contract them. He caved to Stupak (no surprise really). As a self employed person I'm forced into those exchanges and Obama has just decided that certain things cannot be on my policy because one representative doesnt' want them. BTW, I'm not eligible for subsidies either.

    Parent
    he did (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    not contract them

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:46:12 PM EST
    he did. He basically said that policies that cover abortion will not be offered in the exchanges. he also is probably restricting the states that do offer abortions through medicaid. but we all know that it's bros first with Obama and Stupak's a bro after all.

    Parent
    no he did not (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:47:15 PM EST
    there will be every right to an abortion after this bill passes as there is now.
    no federal money can be used now.

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:48:47 PM EST
    dont' understand. This is expanding Hyde into private policies. It is not the same as it was yesterday.

    Parent
    I am not going to argue (2.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    with you.  every pro choice woman in the congress is about to take a very important vote.  they seem pretty excited about it
    so am I.

    so I am not going to come to the pity party

    Parent

    Utter arrogance and misinformed sexist BS (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:56:25 PM EST


    Parent
    you mean this (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    Sounds like it's a repetition of what's already law or in the Senate health care bill.

    from Jeralyn

    Parent

    No, I mean (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:03:36 PM EST
    your condescending "pity party" remark and your sexist assumption that all the women voting for this are voting in my interests because after all we all have a uterus.

    You have become a grandstander and a clown. You embarrass yourself.

    Parent

    its my job (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:05:25 PM EST
    dirty but it has to be done

    Parent
    Sounds like (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:01:01 PM EST
    means it might not that it is.

    Parent
    NOW (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:01:25 PM EST
    says that it restricts rights.

    Parent
    It's (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    not a pity party. Sorry but I don't do the knee jerk thing if X is voting for it must be good. We all know the entire caucus will cave at a moment's notice so the fact that they are voting for something that they profess to be against should suprise no one.

    Parent
    when in doubt (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:02:24 PM EST
    I have a great way to know in the future.

    if every republican is against it and every democrat is for it, I am probably for it.

    Parent

    That's obvious (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:05:36 PM EST
    You're a party-over-policy guy, which now makes you a mindless Obama shill, to judge from your behavior around here lately. You are the prototype of the fauxgressives that BTD has been saying got rolled.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:07:23 PM EST
    this is not about me

    Parent
    You make it about you (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:11:28 PM EST
    when you not only refuse to educate yourself about an issue affecting women's health care and then perversely taunt women by flaunting your ignorance.

    Ignorance itself is excusable. All it needs is information.

    Willful ignorance is something else. And, sorry, that is about you.

    And now you've had all the attention I'm going to give you today.

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:06:47 PM EST
    good keep jerking that knee. Jerkign that knee is what got us this sorry bill. It could be terrible legislation but if the GOP is against it well then it just has to be passed right? I don't see passing crap as a knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction on the right as a good thing.

    Parent
    aye aye! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:08:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Now "every Democrat ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:09:10 PM EST
    ... is for it"?!?!

    Oh, well ...

    ... at least your accuracy is consistent.

    Parent

    except for the dinos (3.50 / 2) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    every progressive democrat is for this bill.
    you want to defend the bubbas go for it

    Parent
    I'm not "defending" ... (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    ... anyone, merely pointing out the fact that you consistently have issue with basic facts, hyperbole and exaggeration, such as when you claimed every Democrat was for this bill.  They're not, you're wrong, and you then try to claim that "DINO's", as defined by you, are the only Democrats against this bill.

    BTW - The mere fact that many "Progressives" are voting for this bill, despite their previous promises to vote against a bill like this does not mean they are "for" this bill.  It merely means they think the damage done to the party by voting for this bill will prevent huge losses in November.

    Like you, ....

    ... they're wrong.

    Parent

    oooooh (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    youre good

    Parent
    And what are you? Twelve? (3.66 / 3) (#100)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:39:21 PM EST


    Parent
    hardly (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:44:23 PM EST
    just over the piercing response

    Parent
    Seriously? What? No ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    "... Nanny-nanny, Boo-boo" rejoinder?

    Parent
    breath (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:08:50 PM EST
    remember to breath

    Parent
    See? Was that so hard? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:00:57 PM EST
    Still patently silly, but almost like an adult.

    Parent
    "But everybody's doing it" (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    is not an argument I find compelling; what those women are doing is as offensive to me - and others - as your reducing our concerns to the level of a pity party.

    But I suspect that offending as many people as possible was probably the intent of your comment.

    Parent

    jusr you (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:12:46 PM EST


    Parent
    You sound like someone (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by lucky leftie on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    who has never had his autonomy bargained away.  You're lucky.

    Parent
    Wait (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:37:10 PM EST
    how on earth does this restrict state funding of abortion through Medicare?

    Parent
    :) I think you mean Medicaid (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:41:50 PM EST
    The 65 and older set probably won't be the group looking for abortion to be covered.

    Parent
    I said (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:42:37 PM EST
    MediCAID not medicare.

    Parent
    My bad how would this (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:45:39 PM EST
    effect state funding of Abortion through Medicaid- it seems to leave that the same as it previously was- no federal funds but state funds can be used.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:49:44 PM EST
    the executive order expands hyde to private insurance and at least here in Ga medicaid is privatized.

    Parent
    Use the Parent Button - (none / 0) (#115)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:46:35 PM EST
    I didn't read, or respond to your comment.

    Parent
    Yes he did (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:00:39 PM EST


    Parent
    What I do expect (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    is exactly what you're doing again in this post.

    Parent
    responding to (3.67 / 3) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    disinformation?

    Parent
    with no information? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    Your answer is that if Democrats vote for it, it must be a great bill.
    Wow, just wow.

    Parent
    I wish (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:11:45 PM EST
    I was you

    Parent
    I have no brains to spare anymore-- (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:14:28 PM EST
    understanding 11-dimensional political geometry has taxed me to the limit.

    Parent
    No, Being boring again. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:39:19 PM EST


    Parent
    It appears to affect women's (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:32:29 PM EST
    ability to get abortion through private providers---i.e., those participating in exchanges.
    I don't see how you can say there's not going to be some extra hoops to get through.

    Parent
    Not just the ability (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:08:44 PM EST
    but the choice. It's nobody's d*mn business what we do with our bodies/lives, yet some think it's just fine to take away our choices (in regards to abortion) AND restrict access. And that's not touching on all the other issues that restricting does. Less facilities, Dr.s etc become available to us. It takes away our choice even more along with access to experienced Drs that we may very well need for serious reproductive health issues.

    And I just 'love' being a bargaining chip for these a**holes . . .

    Parent

    "All" that statement says? (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    NOW weighs in (my bold):

    Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

    March 21, 2010

    The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

    President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law -- it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more.


    David Dayen (this appears to be attributed to Connie Saltonstall, but in following the link and then re-reading the post, I believe David did not mean to attribute the following to her):

    According to Stupak he became convinced that he could not get his language through the Senate, and would have to go the route of an executive order. And at that point, he lost some leverage. However, there is value - from the anti-choice perspective - and harm - from the pro-choice perspective - in getting this executive order governing restrictions on abortion funding. President Obama made a vow to Planned Parenthood to seek the elimination of the Hyde amendment, while running for office. Now, he'll be signing something that, while it doesn't codify Hyde, extends it and "provides additional safeguards".

    In addition, the Senate bill itself is a blow to abortion rights and abortion access, with its conspicuous "two checks" policy for segregation of funds, state opt-out of abortion coverage on the exchanges, and other restrictions. So pro-choice advocates don't have a lot to be thrilled about with the legislation.

    How strong are one's rights when the roadblocks to exercising them keep getting bigger?

    And if going back on yet another campaign promise by actively accommodating the anti-choice crowd is not using women's rights as a bargaining chip, I don't know what is.

    Parent

    NOW and the rest of us (4.50 / 6) (#59)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    are paying the price for NOW's primary endorsement.  The Executive Order, and the position it reflects, are no surprise, however, to many others.  

    Parent
    I have not forgotten that NOW (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:16:04 PM EST
    bailed on principle when push came to shove in 2008, but that doesn't mean they have not accurately represented the meaning of this executive order, even if they are unlikely to accept any responsibility for their role in this debacle.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:22:45 PM EST


    Parent
    You mean when they endorsed Hillary in 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:39:43 PM EST
    this is what led to that? Because NOW didn't endorse Obama until the general election.

    Parent
    I doubt that is what is meant (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:57:02 PM EST
    since that would be silly on its face, wouldn't it?

    There are situations in which organizations can exercise the option of no endorsement.  Special-interest organizations, when well-run, check candidates' positions, records, statements, comments, etc., against the organizations' positions, statements, records, etc.  Special-interest organizations are wise to refrain from endorsements when the two do not match well -- as the result can be all to the benefit of the candidate but at great cost to the organizations' reputation as well as to winning their causes.

    I have been on boards of organizations that do this process very carefully and cautiously, recognizing the cost to their reputations.

    Parent

    NARAL not NOW (none / 0) (#128)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:57:18 PM EST
    You are correct; I was thinking of the NARAL endorsement.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:05:28 PM EST
    Donations have more than likely dried up from many who supported Hillary, now they are directly appealing to your pocketbooks. Send them a check.

    Parent
    Access, access and access (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:51:11 PM EST
    Access is the key here. They don't change the fundamental rights, they just make it increasingly difficult or impossible for some women to receive reproductive health care.

    Parent
    And they are shaming women (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Madeline on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:20:38 PM EST
    I can just imagine that being raped, finding out you are pregnant, want an abortion but.....

    First you have to fill out forms; have them approved; have them filed and probably open to state records; and have everyone in the community health center, state government and federal know what is happening.

    Applies to incest also and any other violence against women and children.

    Also dictates in (1), (3), (4) and (5) that the conscience clause dictates.  That can mean pharmacies, Community Health Centers, doctors.  Also means any services.  I assume that means birth control and any other medications.

    Parent

    Actually, it does change (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    the fundamental rights. You can have the right to anything, but if it's not available, is it really free access to your right(s)?

    Parent
    Speaking as one of "them" . . . (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    they have no fewer rights than they did yesterday

    Well, whoop-de-doo.

    I find it curious, to say the least, that you're so sure of yourself on this point when just a few days ago you were demanding that I tell "us" (that is, you) why women are second-class citizens under this bogus health care reform bill.

    For all your admitted ignorance on this point, it's also curious that you didn't show up at all to comment on this post, which spells out a number of the issues for those who need remediation.

    So here's my modest proposal: maybe it's time for you to sit down and STFU about this until you grow a uterus, instead of perpetually implying that it's the ladies who should pipe down.

    Speaking for "them" only.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:17:17 PM EST
    I don't agree any more than many of you with Capt Howdy, but is it necessary to tell Capt Howdy to shut up or label Capt Howdy an Obama shill?  I think substantive retorts to his logically and factually flawed comments best make the point. Why mimic the modus operandi of many in the pro-Obama camp during the primary?  

    Speaking for me only, if I may quote a phrase....

    Parent

    There it is (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:19:16 PM EST
    The primaries.

    It was just a matter of time.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:21:36 PM EST


    Parent
    What you are seeing (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:23:06 PM EST
    is (1) frustration because many of us have already tried to do what you suggest and (2) anger because Capt Howdy is not here to discuss or learn but only to seek attention by taunting women, for reasons that I cannot explain.

    I'm sorry that that my response to Capt Howdy's days-long marathon of sexist taunting has made you uncomfortable.

    Parent

    you know (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:27:27 PM EST
    I have only been here for an hour or two.

    so . ..

    Parent

    And this is after you announced (4.20 / 5) (#148)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:37:06 PM EST
    you would be gone until today. It wasn't hard to figure you would avoid the day and come back around vote time to continue to be an a**.

    Parent
    I'm not uncomfortable (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:49:35 PM EST
    I just think it opens our position to attack, rather than standing as persuasive arguments. If C H is doing what you say, calling him on substance, pointing out how the comments undermine women, etc. are more effective in the end, IMO.... When people who are not regular posters/commenters here read the comments, I would think more are persuaded by the substance, again, IMO

    Parent
    This has been going on for days (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    All of that was tried.

    Patience wears thin after a while, and then it snaps.

    Sorry. Human nature.

    Parent

    Capt Howdy Sexist? (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    Absurd. Sounds desperate, not surprised from you.

    Parent
    hey thanks (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:14:54 PM EST
    wecome to the pity party
    that one was on a tear before

    Parent
    Start Your Own Blog Then (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:13:33 PM EST
    And ban whoever you do not like, just like ppj did. Do the rest of us a favor.

    Parent
    The "rest of us"??? (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:51:05 PM EST
    Maybe you should just speak for yourself, for a change.

    Better yet, you could take your own advice, rather than coming up with elaborate fantasies of imaginary "refugees from DK", while whining about how they've ruined everything.

    Yeah, I know .....

    .... never happen.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:21:14 PM EST
    The rest of us, but I am sure that you are too busy to have noticed.

    Parent
    Amazing, aren't they, (3.66 / 3) (#163)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:01:52 AM EST
    those Bobbsey Twits.

    Or are they Twittle-Dee and Twittle-Dum? Or Twittle-Dumb and Dumber?

    Whatever.

    What a roll they've been on.

    Hope the bill helps them out with the surgery they need to get their heads out of their @sses.

    Parent

    A Lot More Than Two (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:15:43 AM EST
    By the way, were you banned under your previous screen name, or is it that you are too embarrassed by your previous comments to continue under that screen name?

    And for someone who claims to be in excellent health, you may want to double check your blood pressure...

    Parent

    I will respond to your question (none / 0) (#165)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:54:24 AM EST
    No, I was never banned.

    At the point when Jeralyn turned TL to what I thought was constant counterproductive attention to Sarah Palin, I asked her to delete my account.

    I thought then and still do think that Jeralyn obviously has every right to devote TL to whatever she wants, but at that point I didn't want to be here anymore.

    Instead of deleting my account, Jeralyn deleted my comments and ratings. I guess it takes a separate e-mail to get the account itself deleted, and I just never got around to it.

    After six months or so I started coming back here to read BTD and simply created a new account and a new screen name. Easy. And I know I'm not the first or only one.

    But I was never banned and can still log in under my old screen name but can no longer comment under that name.

    What about you? Were you banned when you took your recent leave?

    Parent

    No Never Banned (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:20:38 AM EST
    Been commenting here for a while, never anywhere else, save for the once in a blue moon comment elsewhere. Took a break from TL, to get some things I need to get done.

    Parent
    Ah yes (none / 0) (#169)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:35:59 AM EST
    Those breaks do help with that.

    Music? Piano?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:58:07 AM EST
    Music, piano and synth, and artwork. Also selling from my art collection to feed the bank et al.

    Parent
    Hope you didn't have to sell your favorites (none / 0) (#177)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:55:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Not Yet (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    Although, selling anything I have collected, is ridiculously painful, even at enormous profit.

    Things could be worse, though, a lot worse...lol.

    Parent

    P.S. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Spamlet on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:07:34 AM EST
    Blood pressure 100/60. Meditation. You could try it.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:21:33 AM EST
    Tai Chi is my meditation.

    Parent
    I didn't ban you (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:49:23 PM EST
    Please be accurate.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:19:37 PM EST
    I never said or implied that you banned me, considering I would never consider commenting on your wingnut rag. I do know that you have banned commenters though.

    In any case once you started your blog, we got a rest here at TL.

    Since Spamlet appears to only be able to tolerate those who are in his or her sockpuppet club, having his or her own blog would allow the sockpuppets to have their own uninterrupted stream of like minded invective.

    Parent

    Yes you did (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:21:00 AM EST
    That's exactly what you did. And you have a history of bragging about such actions and we both know exactly what I am writing about. And I can link/quote to it if you insist.

    Parent
    Are You Going Senile? (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    I have never commented on your blog, and never will, therefore banning me is not possible. The two times I visited your site I realized that it is nothing more than regurgitated fox news, limbaugh, beck, malkin, coulter and the other ultra right wing looneys. Already chewed and partially digested wingnut effluvium has no value for me. If I need to see what the whitewing echochamber is spewing, I can get it first hand.

    Parent
    You wrote what you wrote. (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    And ban whoever you do not like, just like ppj did. Do the rest of us a favor.

    Since you continue to be untruthful, you force me to defend myself.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Why indeed.

    Parent

    Sure Pal (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    What little reasoning you had is obviously gone..  I guess it happens to many of us eventually.

    Parent
    Blogclogging (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:21:51 PM EST
    has nothing to do with the primaries.

    Parent
    want to compare the number of coments (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:26:33 PM EST
    in the last 48 hours?

    Parent
    Counting 3/19, you are ahead by (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:31:57 PM EST
    about 2 to 1 in number of comments.
    If I went back 2 weeks, I'm sure the ratio would be more like 5 to 1 (not joking).

    Parent
    I said 48 hours and I wasnt talking (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:35:42 PM EST
    to you

    Parent
    And I"m offering useful information (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    You made roughly 90 commments on 3/19 (not a record for you, by any means).
    Is there a particular reason you don't want those counted?
    I can think of about 90 reasons myself.


    Parent
    honestly (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:39:43 PM EST
    I am more interested in why YOU count them

    what else to you count

    Parent

    I don't remember you being so (3.66 / 3) (#109)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    weird and unpleasant in the past.
    I think I would have noticed this bizarre, juvenile, repetitive, information-free pattern of commenting before.


    Parent
    The company he's been keeping? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    There's a common pattern and patois, like in a sixth-grade clique.

    Parent
    I dont know (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:45:42 PM EST
    what to tell ya

    Parent
    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:39:19 PM EST
    You go away for most of those 48 hours, promising to "be back on Sunday", then you suggest you want to compare the number of your comments in the past 48 hours as evidence of ...???

    Too funny.

    Parent

    um yeah (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    that it.  exactly

    Parent
    Why not just pick ... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    ... a a full 10 days when you weren't posting any comments, then compare.

    That would be so impressive.

    Parent

    Your Child (3.00 / 2) (#157)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:19:57 PM EST
    Born from the Primaries. In that sense it has everything to do with the primaries.

    Parent
    I missed a post! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    wow
    I actually have a life that intrudes sometime.

    you know what I do have?  a voter registration card.
    so I will express my opinions here any time I damn well please until Jeralyn tells me not to

    K?

    Parent

    You still don't get it (4.56 / 9) (#35)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:03:21 PM EST
    Beyond the details...

    It's the FRAMING, stupid.

    And nobody here cares what the so-called pro-choice caucus is agreeing to. They are as phony as the so-called Progressive Caucus, which rolled over for Obama's b.s. completely.

    Parent

    you know (3.66 / 3) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:24:37 PM EST
    I think you should consider the possibility that someone besides you has a conscience and believes in something. perhaps the women in the congress who are not as happy with this as they might be but are not putting up road blocks are looking at a bigger picture.

     

    Parent

    They don't believe in anything except (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:39:34 PM EST
    keeping their seats warm in November. And, considering the way a lot of women I know are reacting to their cave-in, I'd guess keeping those seats at all is going to be more difficult now.

    But, hey, you're probably more educated than I am about the pro-choice caucus, huh?

    Seriously, Captain, stick to what you know -- trolling and needling -- and leave the reproductive rights stuff to us. We fought for it. We're still fighting for it.

    Parent

    He did not "come out in favor of Hyde" (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:29:25 PM EST
    He came out as acknowledging it's the law.  Which it is.

    Parent
    it's (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:43:59 PM EST
    not even the law. it's an annual renewable budget item. It could be left out of a budget any given year. Bill Clinton tried to dump it once and even did a few end runs around it with executive orders.

    Parent
    and when you come back, you'll (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:08:02 PM EST
    still have nowhere else to go. that's the plan.

    Parent
    So we don't go (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    to only some parts of the ballot but not others when we to the polls.  

    That's the plan.  The one that ought to worry Democrats.

    (Of course, they won't necessarily know it until too late.  I just participated in a PPP survey again, and the questions still presume that going to the polls means marking every box on the ballot -- so I skewed the results, answering as I could but not being able to answer what I did do and will do again, if need be.  One would have thought that the great dropoff in voters who voted only in the presidential part of the ballot in 2008 would have educated the pollsters to the many possibilities that we see before us, when they see just two.)

    Parent

    It seems (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    to expand on Hyde. Remember some people will be using their own money in these exchanges and even with the subidies many are going to be paying part of the premium with their own money.

    Money's fungible (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:31:26 PM EST
    So the logical consequence of Stupak's position is that nobody who gets Federal assistance should have the right to get an abortion at all. The two checks solution is both intellectually and morally a fraud. Now, that explains why Obama would embrace it, but it doesn't explain why Stupak would accept it.

    HHS Control (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    The EO puts developing the policy for the segregation of the funds under the control of the HHS.  This is better than leaving it to the states IMO.

    Parent
    Je repete (none / 0) (#18)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:41:51 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what pipes the money flows through. Money's fungible!

    Parent
    if you watched (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:48:54 PM EST
    the republican news conference you can see they are pretty sure it will happen.

    and it will of couse

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:17:33 PM EST
    What do I care about the legacy parties?

    Parent
    Reading Wiki on Hyde Amendment and (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:04:49 PM EST
    it's successors, original Hyde Amendment had no exceptions for incest, etc.  Hyde language eventually barred abortions coverage under any federal health care plan--federal employees, military, Peace Corps volunteers--and even federal inmates.  So, I don't see the EO language as expanding on Hyde.  Assuming BTD is correct that states which choose to may still pay for abortions for Medicaid enrollees but may not use federal dollars to do so.  

    Resurrecting ye olde states' rights (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:07:21 PM EST
    does seem to be happening a lot these days.

    Didn't expect it under a "Dem" administration, though.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    this gets into what can be offered in the exchanges. How is this teh same:

     "Nothing in this Act shall require an otherwise qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, to cover any items or services to which the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser has a moral or religious objection.

    That's a pretty broad definition. It expands the conscience clause to insurance polices it would seem.

    Parent

    I am unaware of any requirement any (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:18:20 PM EST
    health insurance policy at present must cover elective abortions.  May be a subject of collective bargaining--not sure.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:22:08 PM EST
    there's no requirement that abortions be covered but Obama is mandating that private insurance can't offer that coverage.

    Parent
    I think you are reading the EO language (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:25:43 PM EST
    too broadly.  I could be wrong though.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:28:46 PM EST
    it says that abortion coverage can't be offered thorugh the exchanges. I'm not sure how the insurance companies will handle that. they probably just won't offer the coverage at all.

    Parent
    It says that the recipients of the (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    federal assistance money to buy insurance on the exchanges can't use it to buy abortion insurance.

    Where does it say it can't be offered? I agree it might not be offered if the ins companies think it is not worth the hassle.

    Parent

    And tax credits. That caught my eye. (none / 0) (#91)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:33:40 PM EST
    Couldn't that include a lot more people than those directly getting federal money?

    Parent
    Where does it say that? (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:05:21 PM EST
    I have read the EO multiple times and I don't see that. I could just be dense and you'll have to show me.

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:16:22 PM EST
    I read it wrong. I thought it said that it couldnt be covered by the exchange.

    Parent
    All cool (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    I don't mean to be the fact check police. It's just that there is enough to be angry about in the reality of it - I don't want to waste my energy on the wrong info.

    Parent
    No, (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:22:12 PM EST
    that's okay but I swore I could have read it the first time but when I went back it wasnt there. Yes, there's a ton to be mad about. If I were a Dem in a swing district running against a Scott Brown type Republican I would be quaking in my boots.

    Parent
    That is not in the final text of the EO (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:23:51 PM EST
    Not sure where that originated - Observed found it on firedoglake I believe - but it is wrong.

    Parent
    It was in the text Kathryn Lopez (none / 0) (#84)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    had at NRO earlier today.
    No idea where she got that.

    Parent
    Is that perhaps the Senate Bill language? (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:26:46 PM EST
    Not in the EO, in any case.

    Parent
    Applicable (none / 0) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:09:10 PM EST
    Seems that the framework for keeping federal funds separate from state funds will be applicable to keeping federal funds separate from individual funds.  I wonder if there will be a mechanism in which the interested states can facilitate the process in some way.  Maybe an additional subsidy?

    Parent
    Per Wiki, 17 of 50 states (some by reason (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    of court order) do pay for abortions for women who receive Medicaid.  If a state can find the funds, no reason a state could not extend that to other women, such as women in the exchanges, even with federal subsidy dollars helping the woman afford insurance on the exchange.  

    Parent
    I'm not federal employee for (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    starters. So wouldn't Hyde have just been expanded to women like me? I am one who would buy through the exchange as an independent biz person [which really sucks because my $$$ would end up supporting this]. My other option is to prob pay more for same/similar insurance in the reg market place. Win/Win!!!

    Parent
    Not sure about the import of (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    EO language barring use of "tax credits" in the exchanges for purposes of abortion.  If you are eligible and choose to buy your health insurance via the exchanges, will you get a tax credit for your medical expenses/premium you wouldn't otherwise be entitled to if your health insurance came from a different source--for example, your employer?  

    Parent
    This seems to indicate (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:35:51 PM EST
    that tax credits might be the mechanism by with they provide the premium assistance. I did not know they had firmed up the details on that.

    But I believe the import is that you have to use your own money for the abortion coverage part of your insurance.

    Parent

    So potentially the EO will be (none / 0) (#97)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    significantly expanding the scope of Hyde?

    Parent
    how? Hyde says you always (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:49:12 PM EST
    have to use your own money to pay for an abortion. Prior to this new HCR, it meant you could not use Medicaid or Medicare. Now, with HCR, federal money will be used to help people buy insurance.  The Senate bill already says you can't use the federal assistance to buy insurance for abortion. That expands Hyde implicitly, but not explicitly enough for Stupak. The EO spells it out, but it is no worse than the Senate bill, IMHO.


    Parent
    Did Hyde say anything about (none / 0) (#123)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    tax credits?

    Parent
    No - it didn't say anything about (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:09:07 PM EST
    providing insurance assistance to buy insurance in exchanges either. I guess you can look at it that the very fact of HCR expands Hyde, because there are more ways of getting federal assistance for your health care. In that sense, then yes, HCR itself expands Hyde.

    Parent
    Yes, that's what I mean. (none / 0) (#138)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:14:15 PM EST
    I don't see why the language of Hyde couldn't have been clarified to make it NOT apply to aid via tax assistance.

    Parent
    Sure, it could have (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    Better yet it could have been repealed altogether.

    I wish our crack negotiating team had started with that as the opening bid.

    Parent

    By the way, the EO may (none / 0) (#105)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    just be restating language of the Senate bill, but that still leaves the question of whether this language on tax credits will restrict access to abortion coverage.

    Parent
    I think there is no question (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:53:32 PM EST
    that if tax credits are the mechanism for providing the insurance assistance, they cannot be sued for abortion coverage.

    Or are you saying you think that if you get tax credits of any type, eg. earned income tax credit, you can't buy abortion coverage or get an abortion? I don't think that is what it means. If it meant that, then they might just as well say any federal employee can't use their paycheck to get an abortion.  I'm sure some would love that, but it is not what this says, in my non-lawyewr opinion.

    Parent

    I'm saying the first thing, and this (none / 0) (#125)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:55:00 PM EST
    seems like an extension of the scope of Hyde, because I thought that only dealt with direct federal expenditures on medical care.

    Parent
    I see where you're coming from now (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:15:27 PM EST
    I see the Senate bill itself as expanding Hyde to apply to the assistance provided to people buying insurance in the exchange. Not sure they used the words 'expand Hyde' in the bill, but effectively that's what they did. I don't think the EO goes beyond that.

    Parent
    uh-oh - I meant used, not sued! (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:10:15 PM EST
    entirely different!

    Parent
    So when medical records go online (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:18:47 PM EST
    it will be possible for a hacker to find out if a woman has taken out the extra rider for abortion coverage?

    Oh, that's just great respect for privacy rights.

    No more likely than (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:21:40 PM EST
    a hacker finding out if someone had an abortion, a penile implant, breast augmentation or hair plugs.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:23:46 PM EST
    yes, it is more likely. Right now files are kept in doctor's offices and not necessarily online. If everything does go online then it will be easier for hackers to get your personal medical information.

    Parent
    Great (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    Online record keeping is one of the single best cost control options around, and now it shouldn't be done either- Amazing how they can do it in every other major industrialized nation but online records are too scary for America.

    Parent
    perhaps its because there aren't (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:44:40 PM EST
    adequate protection for people who might be fired if some things got out, in this country.

    Parent
    It's not (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:45:37 PM EST
    that great of a cost control measure. Did I say they shouldnt do it? No, i was merely making the point that the more stuff that goes online the more stuff is vulnerable to a hacker. You should know that.

    Parent
    My medical records are already on line (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:50:42 PM EST
    via my health care group.  So far no one seems interested in the contents.

    Parent
    I thought online med records (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    would be a good idea, until this wrinkle.  So I raise it in the event that someone cognizant can discuss it -- not dismiss it.

    Perhaps you do not know a lot of folks who work for religious institutions that have lots of implicit rules as well as explicit ones.  I have seen people lose jobs that were supposed to have the utmost protections for job security, but. . . .

    Parent

    Not sure what you will make of this (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:50:57 PM EST
    but a couple of years ago I googled the name of a doctor friend and was taken right to a threaded conversation from the Kaiser system. It was a virtual conference about a woman with inflammatory breast cancer. Her real name was used, and the parties to the conference discussed everything from her diagnosis itself to her prognosis to the side effects of edema and nausea and bloody diarrhea and mental confusion that her medications were causing her. All this information about a real woman whose real name was used, and whose real address I also found by Googling. Would you be comfortable having that kind of information floating around about you?

    By the way, I contacted Kaiser as well as the shoddy vendor who put the crappy virtual-conference software together, and I also contacted the local newspaper when there was no response from Kaiser or the vendor after several inquiries, each more pointed than the last.

    Crickets all around.

    So that is one reason why I remain dubious about electronic medical records. Not the utility of the records themselves, but the human-failure-prone nature of their implementation and use.

    Parent

    I once googled someone's email (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:58:15 PM EST
    address and got a link to a discussion about uninary tract infections. That was weird!


    Parent
    P-mail : ) (none / 0) (#132)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:02:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Hope not, for those I know who work (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:22:42 PM EST
    for religious institutions that would fire them for it.

    Parent
    To try to answer your question (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 06:52:26 PM EST
    Is it saying people in the insurance exchanges can get abortion coverage, it just has to be billed separately and can't be paid for with federal subsidies or funds?

    I believe the answer is yes, on the face of it. Companies on the exchange can provide the coverage, but it has to be paid for without federal funds. Hence the 'send 2 checks' solution. But if insurance companies that participate in the exchange have to jump through accounting hoops to provide the coverage, they very well might not do it. Also since the exchanges aren't set up yet. I believe there very well could be a rule eventually that prohibits the companies from offering abortion coverage.

    They (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:14:23 PM EST
    won't provide the coverage in the exchanges. Face it Stupak got what he wanted with out even having a vote on it.

    Parent
    I think the companies (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:30:51 PM EST
    may opt not to offer it. I keep hearing this send 2 checks and the 1 dollar amount is getting thrown around. if that's really what it is, doesn't it cost more to process etc that $1 check than it's worth?

    Parent
    Silly woman, it will be $1 (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:04:02 PM EST
    plus $499 in processing fees.  After all, it's our fault that the poor downtrodden private health insurance companies will be saddled with this burden of getting to charge women two ways for what cost them only one check before.

    How's that Obama promise going now, the one that said that nothing would change for the insured under this health "care" bill?  Oops, I guess that was another of those promises that was only for the guys.

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#158)
    by itscookin on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:28:38 PM EST
    Most women are at risk for wanting or needing  an abortion for at least 30 years or so. If the cost of an abortion is $600 and 1 in 3 women has an abortion in her lifetime, an insurance company could collect 90 yearly premium payments for every abortion it pays for. Under the rules, insurance companies can collect $800 in premiums for every $600 it pays out for an abortion. So at $8-10/year for an abortion rider, a company can make its maximum profit.

    Parent
    They may or they may not (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    off it at all. If they offer it it may be $1 or not.  Seems to me it is a good deal for insurance companies to offer it if they are allowed to by law. Which they still are.

    What they will do is all speculation at this point.

    The Hyde amendment is what really needs to go. I do hate the reinforcement it gets with this EO.

    Parent

    On the topic of bargaining (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 06:59:47 PM EST
    What they seem to have extracted from Stupak in exchange for this is that he himself will vote Yes. The talk until today was that he would release his gang to vote yes, but he was still going to vote No. As BTD says, YMMV as to whether it was worth it.  They may have been able to get that one vote someplace else, but optically having Stupak himself vote Yes is better.

    Maybe they are learning something from the negotiations with Republicans in which they give them everything and then they vote No anyway.

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 08:03:26 PM EST
    you could say they did do better in that Stupak at least voted yes but he got everything he wanted for his vote.

    Parent
    No, he didn't (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:27:50 PM EST
    He got zippo.  He got a totally superfluous and unnecessary affirmation of existing law.  If that's what he was prepared to hold out for, he's an even greater fool than he appears.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 09:47:14 PM EST
    from reading it he expands it into private insruance now. What is different from what Obama wrote that Stupak wanted? He wanted to make sure that abotion wasnt going to be offered as a benefit in the policies in teh excahnges and that is what Obama agreed too.

    Parent
    Again, where does the EO say that? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:32:46 AM EST


    Parent
    where (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    is says that federal money can't be used on policies that have abortion coverage. Ie even if you are paying the majority of the premium yourself then you are still subject to the EO.

    Parent
    Text of the Executive Order on Abortion Funding | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment