The Stupak Problem: Private Insurance Subsidies

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 08:37:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If I were in Congress, and the price to pay for passing the health bills was accepting the Stupak Amendment, I think I probably would swallow it. But before I did that, I would search for solutions that would obviate that need. The heart of the problem is the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance through state based exchanges. While it is true that the new bill does not change existing law (the Hyde amendments of course apply to the expansion of Medicaid), Stupak has seized on the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to argue that new restrictions must be placed on insurance policies offered in these state based exchanges. Stupak is not satisfied by the Nelson Amendment, that permits states to prohibit the sale of private insurance policies that offer abortion in their exchanges.

The obvious solution stares us all in the face - shift the federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to federal subsidies for the purchase of public insurance (Medicaid, Medicare or a new public insurance option.) More . . .

Matt Yglesias writes:

The perversity of holding up a major expansion of health insurance coverage over a desire to slightly increase the severity of already-severe restrictions on abortion funding simply highlights the mistaken nature of the premises.

This is all well and good, but such critiques seem unlikely to sway anyone who holds the Stupak position. It seems past time to begin the process of finding a solution that best fits progressive values.

That solution is to shift federal subsidies for the purchase of private insurance to the purchase of public insurance.

Speaking for me only

< New Yorkers with Cablevision Lose ABC for Oscar Night | Election Day Iraq >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

The Stupak Problem: Private Insurance Subsidies | 55 comments (55 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Rewarding Blue Lapdog Bullying (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by DetroitMark on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 09:06:10 AM EST

I will never support an environment wherein christian zealots are rewarded and recognized for imposing their dogma, and at the same time wasting the time and resources of the entire country, holding back a bill for the expressed purpose of showboating.

You've already admitted that the country doesn't allow federal funds for abortion through the Hyde Amendment. Yet you prefer to acquiesce to this jihadist, the easier path to getting legislation done.

But to me, getting legislation done isn't the only task at hand. There are two jobs that need to be addressed, and to me one isn't any more important than the other.

Pass Healthcare Insurance Reform legislation.
Establish to the world that America is a free country and it will never bow or kowtow to religious oppression even from its own citizens.

Caving in to Stupak in order to pass the bill, to me, is as evil as giving up health care in order to stop Stupak. Both must be achieved, or we should die trying.

: You Betcha! (none / 0) (#52)
by norris morris on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:18:48 PM EST

Stupak simply goes Hyde one or two better in restricting abortion and making it next to impossible for poor and working women to access abortion and use their rights as in RoevWade,Griswald.
Your position on kow towing to the religious groups that attempt to curtail freedom based on their own bias and beliefs is right on.
64 Democrats who voted for Stupak in House bill are in the Hall Of Shame, and if and when the House revisits this in conference and we see more converts to Stupak for political cover, our elected representatives haven't protected us as promised.
Using women as political barter and stooping to religious pressure is not only immoral and shameful, it's a political loser.

Something doesn't feel right (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by nycstray on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 09:07:10 AM EST

Stupak extends Hyde as does expanding public programs. Women still get the shaft, especially the lower income ones. It's still trading on our rights . . . .

It doesn't feel right because it ISN'T right (5.00 / 5) (#5)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 09:32:53 AM EST

Women are continually being told to take one for the team. It was bad enough the stimulus bill was bought off the backs of low income women by restricting their access to affordable Birth Control-now we're supposed to put a toe tag on these women and all women whose families collect up to $30,000 in income or are unable to find affordable insurance(that's right insurance not care since there would still be no alternative on the private market for anyone over 133% that has employer provided insurance) on the market.

No thanks, I'll pass. I think we've been kicked in the teeth enough from the time they did nothing when the SCOTUS decreed private insurance companies are not required to carry birth control, to the labeling of birth control as an abortifactent, to the women we were told to sacrifice so that the Republicans wouldn't call Democrats "baby killers" on partial birth right on down the line. Make no mistake a line has to be drawn or we're going back to the days where mortality for women and children are much, much higher.

Enough is enough. It's time to say NO.


: Me too (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:47:58 PM EST

I've thought it through and I'm done!

Because Stupak Is Wrong & Shameful (none / 0) (#53)
by norris morris on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:22:24 PM EST

It feel wrong because it is wrong.

Politically it's a loser when our elected representatives shaft us for political gamesmanship and cover. They become faux democrats in an instant.

Stepping on women's rights and pushing us back is bad enough. It's intolerable. And hitting on the weakest among us...poor women...is unspeakable.


Recipe for disaster (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by mmc9431 on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 09:50:15 AM EST

Passing a bill that trashes both woman and the unions is going to tear the party apart. I just don't see enough advantages at this point to go on with it.

But (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by kmblue on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 10:36:19 AM EST

to purchase what public insurance, BTD?

Medicare, Medicaid (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:05:14 AM EST

or a new public insurance program.

I think the easy way is to add a Medicare Buy In and pair the affordability subsidies to it.

To wit, make Medicare available to everyone 55 and older and to all person not eligible for Medicaid but not able to afford private insurance, using the formula for affordability credits now slated for use in the exchanges.

You can keep the exchanges for everyone else who would otherwise qualify.

This solves the Stupak Problem.


Good idea (none / 0) (#15)
by mmc9431 on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:11:50 AM EST

I'd jump up and down and do a cart wheel if Dem's could muster the courage to do that! Do you really think it has a chance?

Things are so tangled now that I don't know if they could grasp anything so simple and positive.


: It has no chance (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:44:26 AM EST

I throw it out there as an answer to the Yglesias' and Skocpols of the the "progressive" world.

Oh, that's clever... (none / 0) (#28)
by masslib on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 02:01:32 PM EST

Yes, that would solve the Stupak problem...and the cost curve problem...and the health care problem.

That's cute.

It's funny, though, I do wonder if the public will embrace anything short of access to Medicare(or public insurance,which the public equates with Medicare). I don't think we will. I think the Democrats have done all they can to avoid passing public insurance(no donor constituency in a government program), and they have desgined all the bells and whistles they can think of to get the public to support a government subsidized private market solution, and no ones buying it.


Right. My opinion is that the (none / 0) (#29)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 02:17:17 PM EST

public hate for the mandate will be extreme.
All I get when I mention this to bill supporters is a "there, there".
Telling me that it's constitutional is completely besides the point.
Telling me it's good policy, when that won't be clear for several years, is also not helpful.

Look, I think the mandate is important--but a mandate where the only option is private insurance??? That probably annoys as many Republicans as it does Democrats. EVEYRONE knows the insurance companies are bloodsuckers.


If the ERA had a number (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:21:56 PM EST

instead of still only a name, because it didn't get numbered into the Constitution, I suspect that the Stupak stipulation would be toast. And others are increasingly saying so, too.

So I wonder if the HCR bill's supporters are at all aware of this discussion and are anticipating that a potential consequence of passing the bill with this extra stipulation upon women only could be the awakening of a new generation to need for the ERA.

And then anticipating what tossing that into the works could do to the Obama/Dem agenda.

To which I say: Bring it on. Give us that cause again, and watch what it could do at election times. (Oh, and don't count on Hillary Clinton to fix this one for you again and bring a lot of women voters to the polls for Dems. Not on this one.)


: Do people know how much (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:42:00 PM EST

money they'll be forced to fork over?
8 percent of pretax income is a lot for most people.
And you think packages won't be at the maximum rate? haha

: I hope your right Cream City (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:45:23 PM EST

I hope that there will be consequences although I daresay the Democrats will be smart enough to make the coorelation. They've been coasting as the default vote for a loooooooong time.
I do know this that if they pass the Stupak vote and they are fortunate enough/unfortunate enough to go up against a female opponent(and the Repubs were smart enough to find one to recruit last time)that they will not be able to utter the words "do it because the GOP will take away your reproductive rights." That little excuse will not go over AT ALL.
Like you, I for one, also say "Bring it on" It's time to shine a bright light on the men and women who seem to believe that women shouldn't have complete control over their bodies or their destinies.

I think public hate will be extreme too (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:46:26 PM EST

It is a damned rip off.


You are deaming. (none / 0) (#54)
by norris morris on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:26:39 PM EST

This was shot down in the Senate. Obama has done nothing to support it and it died when in Senate.

Obama has done nothing, period. Today Dick Durbin our faux progressive senator suggests abandoning any idea of the public option....
because?

Because the republicans may come up with someting as good or better. So we should give it up and the senators opting for it should cave to make a Republican offer possible.

I kid you not.

Help!!


He's calling to expand Medicaid and Medicare (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:23:18 AM EST

to anyone who is eligble for a subsidy. Both are FEDERAL programs that are subject to the Hyde Amendment. By restricting any subsidies given to these two programs he eliminates the need for Stupak. None of the tax dollars would go to private insurance companies at all which eliminates the "big corporate health insurance giveaway" argument.

The problem is it expands the number of women who would be left with little to no reproductive choice. Anyone with a family of 4 making $30,000 or without access to health insurance through their employer would no longer have the option of reproductive choice without purchasing some sort of additional private insurance. Furthermmore, I suspect it would impact states that allow state funding to be utilized on D&Cs since the bill does create federal health care standards.

I suspect after they eliminate access to surgical abortion that birth control is the next frontier. The signs are already there. It's considered an abortifactent per federal standards. Doctors and pharmacists are no longer required to write for it or fill it if it conflicts with their belief system. Insurance companies are not required to carry them on their formulary thanks to a SCOTUS decision that no one in Congress has even bothered to try and fix. We saw that the funding of low cost birth control was not a priority with the stimulus bill. We saw increases threefold across campuses due to a 2005 Medicaid "fix" that no one in Congress is addressing either.

The Overton window is being pulled right and unless women stand up and say no they can rewelcome higher mortality rates for themselves and the children they'll be forced to bring into the world.

Sad.


: Stupak Prohibitions (none / 0) (#55)
by norris morris on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:32:35 PM EST

I understand Stupak conditions that these women on [public subsidies] may NOT even pay for their abortions even with their OWN private money if they are in federally subsidized programs.
This means Medicaid or any federally subsidized insurance program would not allow these women to pay for their own abortions as long as they take federal subsidies. This makes these women religious amd political serfs and denies them their rights under the constitution.
Is this America or Iran?

Not optimistic (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by mmc9431 on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 10:56:43 AM EST

I used to agree that any bill would be better than none. As HCR continues to swirl down the sink hole, I've had to rethink my support.

The premise that DC will reevaluate the bill and improve it is asking for more of a leap of faith than I'm willing to make.

I really feel that this bill could give us at least 8 years of Republican control again. Way too many people view this bill as still another corporate bailout that ignores the average person in favor of special interests.

Weigh this bill, the stimulus bill and the bank bailouts, against the populist movement that's growing in the country and we're in deep trouble.

Stupak says he has a dozen votes (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by joanneleon on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:02:56 AM EST

I say take it to the floor and let them produce those Nay votes.

When is enough enough?

It should be brought to the floor but (none / 0) (#24)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:32:01 PM EST

here's the name of the Coathanger brigade or Dirty Dozen

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/04/anti-choice-site-names-the-stupak-12/

They shouldn't get a cent from the party that professes it's defense of Roe v Wade if and when they are primaried.


: I second that! (none / 0) (#26)
by mmc9431 on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:43:42 PM EST

The number (none / 0) (#43)
by christinep on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 06:50:57 PM EST

Some say that he is double-counting. Take a look.


Remember back when abortion was not legal? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by jawbone on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:26:16 PM EST

Women's groups would note that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

That says it all.

It's the power of the patriarchy trying desperately to return to its full control over women.

After thinking all this through (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:44:32 PM EST

I cannot support anymore means of healthcare coverage being used to destroy my rights as a woman. I will not tell people they must pay for anything that violates women's rights unless the subsidies are going to fully and completely cover the expense of the entire premium. I will not tell some woman that she must purchase anything that drains her bank account so that when she finds out her child has Down's Syndrome or something even more horrifying she is flat broke in trying to deal with it. I just won't do it. I will not terrorize women any more than they already are. I have a child with a genetic disorder. I know how all this goes and I know how much terror is constantly involved.

My daughter and I thank you (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:56:05 PM EST

for standing with us MT. Women's individual destinies belong in their own hands, not in the hands of legislative members who then use funding the needs of children a political football(I daresay my state is the only one who made education and programs for low income people-many of them children- first on the cutting board). These people aren't even smart enough to connect the dots on the cost financially to our federal and state budgets when we force people unprepared financially to take on that aspect of raising a child. Let alone be able to judge the full faculties of what it takes to raise a well adjusted child that lives up to their full potential.


Too bad you are now "haters" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 04:59:17 PM EST

because you want to prevent women from getting access to health care (except for reproductive health care!).


I'm not the "hater" (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:35:07 PM EST

I'm not the one stomping my feet and insisting my personal beliefs become law in order to give people access to care. That's Stupak and his coathanger brigade.

Furthermore, I'm not part of a group that insists that even as I accept federal funds I be allowed to discriminate against people for their lifestyle choices or personal belief.

I believe in the Statute of Religious Freedom that founders like Madison and Jefferson crafted and got passed in direct opposition to the legislation that Patrick Henry attempted which would have established us a "Christian" nation.

The whole thing is worth a read but I'll start with the first part

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

I have to wonder which part of that Stupak has problems with and why exactly he hates Thomas Jefferson and the American principles he espoused?


I know you're not.. didn't you catch (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:36:49 PM EST

RonK saying that people like you are haters, last night?


Heh (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:48:11 PM EST

My snark meters broken. Yeah I heard I can add bigot to racist, uneducated and bitter for pointing out that a female perspective on the legislation proposed was going to be ALOT different because our experiences as men and women are different. He just couldn't seem to grasp the idea that there is way higher cost to continuing a pregnancy for women then men. Even though Anne valiantly tried to muddle through explaining it to him.


Hey, its 9 months for the man, too! (none / 0) (#41)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 05:52:27 PM EST

Psssst it's actually 10 months (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 06:27:46 PM EST

for full gestation of 40 weeks,using the 4 week increment(you tend to count when you puke and swell, some women may glow I was not one of them).

My husband suffered in a different way while I was pregnant 5 times. With all of them I hit a point where I felt fat and miserable. I'm sure I was a real joy to be around.

With my daughter, my second, I puked -constantly. I even did so down his back following my glucola test. The poor guy had to cook because the sight or smell of food made me sick.

With my 4th I was a basketcase because we lost our third of the same thing that took his brother's first child.(SIDS) I would wake up in tears terrified and remembering every painful detail of that last day. He got permission to not deploy to provide emotional support for me.

My youngest and perhaps one of the sweetest children to walk the face of this earth almost killed me though. 10 years following his delivery I still have right kidney hydronephrosis. He's so worth it but I'm glad I was the one who was able to determine that. While I was hospitalized my husband must have been terrified that he'd be left to raise 4 children on his own.

I am blessed to have a supportive man. He did diapers. He has taken kids for shots and dental visits. He tries his best to be a true PARTNER when it comes to raising our children. Not every woman is as fortunate as me though. Some have little to no resources or support network. It upsets me that someone can presume to act like pregnancies are a one size fit all proposition and it should be treated as such.

I'm sure that's pretty obvious though. I've rarely been accused of subtlety though. :)


: Thanks for sharing. (none / 0) (#45)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 07:00:52 PM EST

I did not. - but go ahead, stir the pot. (none / 0) (#44)
by RonK Seattle on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 07:00:32 PM EST

I haven't called anybody a "hater", nor have I broad-brushed "people like you" with any label whatsoever.

I called cawaltz a "Bigot".

I labeled one of Anne's posts "bigoted babble" and "hate speech".

I stand by both assessments.

Both posts contain false accusations and unwarranted invective, all on account of the act that
a) I disagreed with them on some wonkish matters, and
b) I am (shudder) a man.

It's ironic that in this case I was simply relaying and defending the views of an uber-wonk who is
a) a woman's movement hero in her own right, and
b) a woman!

This slowed them down not a whit as they chastised me for never having died in childbirth, firm in the conviction that my mismatched chromosomes render me congenitally incapable of opinion and render themselves immune from any obligation to meet evidence and consequential reasoning with evidence and consequential reasoning.

The threshold they propose for capacity to give a damn about women's health would make it inappropriate for any male to even consider providing health care to any woman (which view ironically accounts more excess mortality in childbirth elsewhere).

Have a nice evening, everybody.


You have some serious reading comprehension (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 08:55:16 PM EST

issues.

What you were told was as a male that you would never have the same stake in the restriction of women's reproduction as a woman.

You were then given numerous examples of experiences that you or any other man would never, ever face.

Your response was to call it hate speech and babble.

I've been happily married to a man for 17 years so I don't shudder over your manhood, I shudder over the idea that you could not possibly comprehend that you have LESS AT STAKE then any of the women you were imploring should compromise their reproductive rights so that Stupak could be assuaged and everyone could have something, even if it might mean that it would mean a larger sum of women might die or have their lives irreparably altered by denying them reproductive choice.

The "progressive" position should be to tell Stupak to sit down and shut up considering the Democratic plank says they support a women's life to choose. Hey, though don't let a little thing like principles espoused as the party platform stand in the way of your capitulation to the viewpoint that Hyde didn't do nearly enough damage to a woman's right to choose. No compromise is too big when it isn't actually you that would ever have a preforated uterus or a miscarriage that requires a D&C.

Oh and prove your assertion on mortality I dare you because I have numbers that prove my assertion that the capitulation being done on women's reproduction does lead to higher mortality rates(since the great and wonderous progressive men in Congress already capitulated funding for BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, terming them ABORTIFACTANTS and doing nothing to require private insurance companies to even carry them) for both women and their children? I want FACTUAL DATA not some anecdotal "whatsername and I think that this will open up the market and we'll fix it later" garbage. Supposedly the progressive men in Congress were going to fix the Patriot Act, the fact that they tossed the cost of low income birth control out of the stimulus bill and a whole host of other things that we are still waiting on them getting around to.

I'm done with being told by "progressive" men like yourself "don't worry, be happy" and "Hey, let the REAL hateful bigot who is stamping his feet and insisting his belief system trumps your rights have his way because otherwise he'll hold his breath or muck up complete health care reform for the menfolk and partial reform for the women."

The line is drawn. My reproductive rights and my daughters will not be utilized as a bargaining chip. In the immortal words of people progressives in 2008 I'll term this in a way you can understand, "Get over it."


You're not bad for being male, (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:01:24 AM EST

you just shouldn't have any legal say in a woman's decisions about her own body. Men can have their opinions about abortion but that doesn't mean men should get to force anti-choice opinions on women in the form of restrictive laws. It's not your body, and shouldn't be your decision.


: The person (none / 0) (#51)
by cawaltz on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 01:52:52 PM EST

who will have to live with the results of her reproductive decision and all the consequences it entails(and yes there are consequences for BOTH decisions)should be the one to decide. Not anyone else without a complete grasp of all the details and all the components necessary to make a decsion that reverberates with that singular woman for years.

Wait, I have a question for you. (none / 0) (#46)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 07:07:36 PM EST

You mentioned Skopcol's expertise was in the area of negotiations. Sorry, I couldn't find the comment yesterday so I don't remember the details.
What I was wondering is whether she is an academic expert only or has been part of political negotiations in other countries.

Thanks.

P.S. I'm a man and I wouldn't dream of pretending I can put myself in a woman's shoes regarding reproductive issues. The things they go through and the risks they bear---astounding.


And you disparaged my comments (none / 0) (#48)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:16:58 AM EST

but still haven't supplied the sources I requested to support your statements. Hmm, maybe you have read the post and many comments that since refute your claims:

We don't know for sure whether lack of any coverage is worse for women than lack of abortion coverage - or more likely, the administrative obstacle course of separate abortion riders (with negative net cost to insurance underwriters)?
How can you expect me to take that argument seriously?
The abortion coverage battle is a contest of wills -- not a contest of greater goods. Contests of will can be important, but Theda is on solid ground in the contest of goods.

Yes, I am serious -- we don't know the full impact. What we do know is that your simplistic thinking that abortion is unrelated to a vast array of women's health conditions makes you remarkably uninformed. Or unwilling to be informed. Either way, best you just stay away from discussions about which you know so little.


BTD, did you see Franken's (none / 0) (#1)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 08:53:13 AM EST

letter to a constituent? Sorry I don't have the link, but he said the House should pass the Senate bill and trust the Senate to fix things later.
Do you really think there will be reconciliation?
My read is that most of the eggs are in the "pass the bill and trust the Senate" basket.
Any talk of reconciliation is intended to showcase the difficulties in actually carrying that procedure through.

Stupak won't (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 08:56:19 AM EST

"pass the bill."


: Do you think there is a strategy (none / 0) (#7)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 09:58:51 AM EST

being pursued by Dem leadership now? I"m not sure I know what's going on. I don't see Obama supporting reconciliation.

Despite all this, (none / 0) (#8)
by Coral on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 10:14:54 AM EST

most of which I agree with -- at least partially -- I hope they pass a bill (and soon). The situation for so many is dire. Even those who have insurance that seems acceptable for the moment are threatened -- by loss of job, kids aging out of dependent coverage, by recissions, by insurance company rate increases forcing companies to cut back on coverage. I think a lot of people don't realize how vulnerable they are.

I'm sickened, appalled, dismayed, baffled, by Obama's method of negotiation (continual, preemptive surrender to an imaginary opponent to actually has a policy position other than all-out destruction of the Democratic Party). Has this guy ever bought a car? I wonder. He must have paid twice the sticker price.

However, I just want them to pass a bill. I would like to see my kids have some kind of access, which they are without right now.

: Your asking if a guy who buys (none / 0) (#9)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 10:15:40 AM EST

$100/lb ham can negotiate price?:)

: I apologize (none / 0) (#27)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:45:59 PM EST

It isn't fair that Stupak is willing to hold your children or you hostage because he personally does not believe in abortion.
I assure you that our side will do everything we can to assure Rep Stupak that he will never personally be forced to have an abortion should he ever acquire a uterus. Nor would we be insisting that the government mandate that abortion be a requirement for anyone.
Barring that I don't see an end to the impasse.
Sigh. I just depressed myself because I'm betting that Obama will never say anything remotely like I just said.

: Obama is getting exactly what he wants. (none / 0) (#50)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:56:46 AM EST

I'm sickened, appalled, dismayed, baffled, by Obama's method of negotiation... Has this guy ever bought a car?... He must have paid twice the sticker price.

He gets to be the man who finally gave our country universal health care, in spite of the fact that what he's really giving us universal health insurance with great big new welfare entitlement and a huge hit on middle class resources. In spite of the fact that it'll destroy our progressive agenda with it's backlash against Democrats, since it's now obvious that they're as much owned by the insurance industry as the Republicans. In spite of the fact that the bill actually blocks real healthcare reform for decades...
But big O gets to go down in history as the man who finally "got it done."

When right wing activists say "NO" (none / 0) (#11)
by MO Blue on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 10:55:00 AM EST

they never deviate from their position.

When left wing activists say "NO", you can count on them to change their position under pressure.

Begging for crumbs (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:35:04 AM EST

I can't stand the ideology of the other side but the idea of being a part of a coalition that has no backbone and is continually allowing its opposition to kick them in the teeth sickens me.

There doesn't appear to be a single portion of the Democratic platform that isn't willingly allowed to be compromised.

All I have to say to anyone who thinks its acceptable to offer women up on the altar is that it may be you they may be willing to offer up as a sacrifice next.


I wonder how much of the left's problem (none / 0) (#19)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:47:15 AM EST

has to do with infiltration.
I'm not quite half serious, but not totally joking.
This has been a strategy of the right for quite a while.
Maybe the same time that Young Republicans were traing to be fascists, some of them became fake D's, hoping to get into government later to help the R's.


I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:10:54 PM EST

but it's positively pathetic that people that are supposedly steadfast in their support of Roe v. Wade are stuck between taking the defense position that "HYDE already limits reproductive rights" and "Hey, let's see how many more women we can screw out of allowing reproductive choice because I personally believe that a woman exercising that choice is a sin."

There isn't a single one of them effectively arguing that Hyde was wrong to begin with and that allowing an exemption on taxes for specific people who have specific belief systems opens the country up to the problems faced back during our country's founding.

Heck no, if they did that the Republicans might call them mean names. We couldn't have that.


Right, because Republicans (none / 0) (#22)
by observed on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:13:31 PM EST

don't call us mean names now.


: Shut up you commie pinko ;) (none / 0) (#25)
by cawaltz on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 12:35:32 PM EST

I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the Democratic coalition presently in place are a bunch of invertabrae. How can they represent me adequately when we don't even appear to be of the same species?

Sneak my eye! (none / 0) (#20)
by mmc9431 on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:54:16 AM EST

They don't have to sneak in. We're welcoming them in with open arms and funding their campaigns!
