Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
March 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


Health care reform passes House, with gut punch

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:29:32 AM MST


Well...the healthcare reform bill passed the House, but not without a gut punch to women.

First, Democrats struck a deal over healthcare to win the support of Catholic bishops by allowing an amendment to reach the House floor that would disallow any insurance passed in the health insurance exchange to cover elective abortion procedures.

Jane Hamsher: "Democrats in Congress have just proudly signed a deal...which allows a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own sexual issues to dictate access to abortion services..." Hamsher rips Planned Parenthood and NARAL for rolling over on this and other women's issues wrapped up in health care reform.

Even Ezra Klein thinks it's a bad deal:

The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

A great day for women, that started off with the Democratic women's caucus being repeatedly shouted down by Republican Congressmen on the House floor.

It's hard to jump and down and cheer for a bill with so many bad compromises in it - how did we get here? In part, I blame the group of "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats who drag their feet on Democratic policies while taking in industry donations. But those Democrats exist and wield power because the Republicans are quickly ceding their role as rational political players. They vote against every piece of legislation in Congress, and refuse to even enter negotiations in crafting legislation. The effect is particularly dire in the Senate, where Republicans so far have filibustered, or threaten to filibuster, nearly every Democratic bill or judicial nomination. As a result, the worst Senators - Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln - are having the most influence on policy.

And it might get worse. Krugman:

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration's job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing - but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here - and it's very bad for America.

Jay Stevens :: Health care reform passes House, with gut punch
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is classic rationalization ... why am I not surprised? (0.00 / 0)
You're blaming the failures of your party on the Republicans. They are what they are. Screw them.

How to say this ... there are, on the fringes of the Democratic Party, some Republicans, like Lieberman and Nelson, Conrad and Baucus and Bayh (whose wife is making millions of dollars sitting on the Board of a health insurance company). They are indeed a problem.

The question is how to deal with the problem. When the White House wants funding for its Afghanistan/Pakistan invasion, it beings incredible pressure to bear on people in Congress. When Pelosi wants the Progressive Caucus to back off, she threatens them with loss of funding and campaign finances. When Reid is threatened by a recalcitrant right wing Democrat, he backs down. He is not a weak man nor an ineffective leader. He is simply not a progressive. He's a right wing Democrat.

This is not a problem caused by the Republicans. It is a failure of Democratic leadership. They do not lead. They have at their disposal all the tools they need to get things done, but they do not do it. If they were to energetically pursue popular reforms with the vigor they do things like Af/Pak,they could get things done. They choose not to.

I share your frustration that things are not getting done. But with the presidency and strong control of both houses of congress, to lay this at the feet of the Republicans is the weakest posture I've seen you take to date. It's a  childish excuse. Democrats blew it. Democrats are the problem.

Do not, ever ever again, say nasty things about people who reject Democrats and vote for third parties. Futile though it might be, you give lessons in futility with every breath you take.


You prefer... (0.00 / 0)
...a kind of elegant, blame-free futility?

I'll not disagree about Democratic leadership. Still, I do think voting third-party is about as useless as it gets. Instead of finding good candidates and supporting them, you're essentially throwing your vote away and opting out of the system. If this healthcare bill demonstrates anything, it's that we need to ratchet up the pressure on Democrats, not abandon the process altogether.


[ Parent ]
You make a fair point ... (0.00 / 0)
and I am cognizant of that. It is a screwed up system.

What do we do, however, when Democrats campaign as progressives and then turn out not to be once elected? How do we spot them? What will you say to me if I tell you I think someone is a poseur? Will I get riddled for being a negative nabob?

And then there is the marginalization of progressives within the party. Kucinich was called into Pelosi's office - she laid it out for him, how he must compromise and support the program. She doesn't do that with the right wing of her party. Will you join us in trying get rid of her, and Baucus and the others? Are you willing to suffer a Republican in office to achieve a longer-term goal?


[ Parent ]
Didn't you notice that Kucinich (0.00 / 0)
didn't vote for Pelosi's bill? He neither compromised, nor supported the bill. Sure he was marginalized. But he's not going away any time soon. Several other progressives were there with him, too.

Good third party candidates? How about Kucinich running on a Progressive party plank? Sanders on a SD  ticket? I'd love to see the two of them put their ideas out for greater public education.

Oh, and about your little stab at me being a liberal and all over at 4&20, I thought you had given up PUI (posting under the influence...). Cheers. ;-)


[ Parent ]
Hope you took that in stride ... (0.00 / 0)
I was laughing as I posted, but the humor did not make it through the Ethernet with the words.

Jay is saying that we need to work within the D Party, and dammit it if he doesn't have a point. My point is that part of the difficulty is the unwillingness within the party to abandon people like Baucus and Bayh. There has to be a willingness to shed right wing Democrats if things are ever going to change.  


[ Parent ]
Spoken just like a tea bagger would... (0.00 / 0)
Seems that progressives and tea baggers have a lot in common--wanting to purge their parties of RINOs and DINOs.

What I want to know is what happens to all the RINOs and DINOs when purged. Can they form their own centrist 3rd party called the Corporatists?


[ Parent ]
What would you do about ratheching? (0.00 / 0)
That's the phenomenon where the Republicans move further and further right, and the Democrats step in to prevent backsliding during their term in office.

I'm seeing all kinds of confusion out there, as people who are against this industry-written health care bill on all sides of the spectrum are being called "anti-reform". We're being sandbagged on all sides.

That's what happens when both parties have the same financiers - ideological mush, public confusion.  


[ Parent ]
Rather odd (0.00 / 0)
You, yourself have argued that even independent candidates end up in the pocket of party politics once elected.  So, seeing no options save complaint, you really are a negative nabob.

Are you willing to suffer a Republican in office to achieve a longer-term goal?

No, but thanks for asking.  We played that game, and it didn't end well.  I haven't a doubt you were saying the same things in 2000.  Where did that get us?


[ Parent ]
I should have known when you were yapping about clever negotiating ... (0.00 / 0)
that you were going to like whatever crap you were served.

And I love the way you talk as if Gore was going to be different if elected in 2000. A Democrat who is not in office is always strong and pure. God you're easy.  


[ Parent ]
I never said that (0.00 / 0)
At no point have I ever said I like the bill passed by the House.  Nor was I commenting on that.  I was simply once again pointing out your silly and delusional circular reasoning.

[ Parent ]
You are hard to comprehend .. (0.00 / 0)
I seldom know what the hell you are talking about, and I am not stupid.

I describe the system as it exists - Republicans advance change, Democrats step in to prevent that change from being undone. It's going on right now before your eyes.

That's a circular process. If it does not change, our lives will not get better.

Perhaps my description of a downward spiral appears to you to be circular reasoning.

Better yet, we are spiraling downward, but you see the movement as gradual progress.

Whatever. I'm not the problem here. Steelers 28, Broncos 10.  


[ Parent ]
What's really hard to comprehend (0.00 / 0)
is how the Left acts like a bunch of caged monkeys at a zoo having a shit fight with each other.  Why the constant diversion to person and personality and the toss of sloppy steaming zingers?

If you believe yourself not stupid, please explain your intelligent flinging as you sit powerless, behind bars, in full view of the public?

The only thing that seems to unite the Left is hate of the Right. Not much to build on there.


[ Parent ]
The problem is that you view the left as monolithic ... (0.00 / 0)
In fact, just as the Republican Party has been taken over by radicals, the Democratic Party has been taken over by corporatists. There are no more conservatives, and the Democrats reflect their financiers. Their business is to give us what the right wants, but to mask it as a leftist idea.

Hence, the current version of health care reform.

Look to your own house first, do something about yur wild-eyed radicals. That is, unless you are one.  


[ Parent ]
I view the left as a jar (0.00 / 0)
of marbles. There doesn't seem to be anything that binds you together, only the jar of hate to keep you all from chaotically  rolling about. You try and create a new banner called Progressive but it is meaningless as a unifying concept as demonstrated here.

What is revealing is how quickly you shift the conversation to Dems vs. Rs.  I thought you had transcended party affiliation as what defines you.  I was speaking of the Left in my previous comment and how you engage each other here.  


[ Parent ]
Mark (0.00 / 0)
You claim contradictory things.  You've claimed earlier that you always understand where I'm coming from, so much so that you claim the ability to know what I think before I've ever written it.  Yet here you claim you seldom know what I'm talking about.  That's an exclusive or, Mark.  One or the other.  Either you lie then or you lie now.  Which is it?

Here's reasoning according to Mark T.

Republicans and Democrats are the same.  Republicans advance change.  The underlying assumption is that this change is bad.  Perhaps I'll deal with that at a later time.  

Democrats step in to prevent that change from being undone.

=Democrats work to not not change = Democrats advance change.

Therefore, Republicans and Democrats are the same, by simple equivalency.  But here's where you go off the rails:

Democrats are the problem.

By your earlier equivalency, this is untrue because obviously they are both the problem, if the problem is working for change you find to be bad.  So, the obvious falsehood invalidates conclusions spun from it.  What remains unestablished is that the change worked for by Democrats is the same as worked for by Republicans.  This, you ignore in order to complete the circle of your reasoning.

If D and R are the problem, we should not vote D and R.  That's sound reasoning.  You follow through on this established erroneous logic by voting for independents.  Except, you argue that anyone who runs against a D or an R is doomed in the running or will be absorbed/nullified by the Ds and the Rs upon winning.  Republicans will continue to advance change bad for Mark, and Democrats will continue to advance change bad for Mark.  So, it's a matter of stasis.  The status quo will always win out.  We will always have change and it will always be bad, as argued by Mark Tokarski.  This proves the hypothesis that Democrats and Republicans are the same, because, Democrats and Republicans are the same.  Circular reasoning.  That's not a spiral downward, Mark.  That's a straight line.

Only one small problem.  Your model doesn't work.  It's been proven false time and again.  The reason is exactly what you've pointed out and refuse to see.  That's your delusion.  Despite Craig's impotent caterwauling to the contrary, not all Democrats are the same.  Not all the Republicans are the same, though they do appear more uniform than the Democrats do.  If these differences exist, Mark, than your circle of sameness falls flat on its ridiculous face.  Your argument fails, at almost every level.  You simply can't abide it because Democrats and Republicans are the same ... to you.  They must be, because you have desires backed by circular reasoning.

I'm not the problem here. Steelers 28, Broncos 10.
 

On this we agree.  You are not the problem; you're not even a factor.  The problems were that 1) The Steelers played the best half of football they've played since the beginning of the season, 2) the Broncos couldn't find a running game, 3) they couldn't contain Roeslisthberger in the second half, and 4) they won't throw down the field.  Now, Mark, instead of actually pretending you know something about the sport, why don't you give your analysis.  Get in the game, or back off.


[ Parent ]
See now? You're dense and tedious ... (0.00 / 0)
I wrote about the ratchet effect.

Republicans promote radical right wing change.

Democrats replace them, and prevent us from undoing that change.

Both are part of one machine - one to move us to the right.

The other to prevent us from backsliding.

Ergo, Democrats support Republican change.

Ergo, Democrats are useless in preventing radical right wing governance.

Ergo, Democrats are the problem.

We cannot do anywhting about Republicans - they are what they are.

They should be iognored.

We shoudl try to advance progressive change.

Democrats are the tool to use to do that.

Democrats do not do that.  They instead act as the pawl in the ratchet.

Therefore, they do not fulfill the purpose of representing alternative views.

Ergo, useless. Ergo the problem.

SOrry for using words like "governance" and "progressive" and "backsliding".

Tried to limit it to two sylables.

I predicted at your website Steelers 27-10. I don't know anything about football, but I did better than you.



[ Parent ]
More circular reasoning. (0.00 / 0)
Democrats are the problem so they need to be replaced.  You say they need to be replaced with ... Republicans.  Who are the same as Democrats, as you argue.  I say they need to be replaced with better Democrats.

And you'll notice, if you pull your head out of your ass, that I never made a prediction on that game.  So, congratulations for besting your delusion.


[ Parent ]
Idiot ... (0.00 / 0)
Your buttons are like 6x6.

More and better Democrats reminds me of a story... a vegetable farmer was complaining to his manager that for every truck of produce he hauled into the city, he was losing $100.

His manager thought about it and said the answer was "more truck".


[ Parent ]
Mark (0.00 / 0)
you are absolutely right...but I do disagree with you on one very important point...Reid and Pelosi DO LEAD...they lead Democrats to their corporate influenced centrist views...they are NOT progressive by any stretch of the imagination.

Until progressives take the democrat party back, one precinct, one county, one state, at a time, this will continue...


Aye ... daunting challenge .. (0.00 / 0)
But you're right.  

[ Parent ]
Anybody else but me think it's time....................... (0.00 / 0)
time to YANK the tax free status of the catholic church?!  I mean, when their bishops send a letter around to be read in ALL churhces not once, but at least twice, that a vote for O'Bama will send you straight to hell, it's TIME! It's the free market, baby!  If the bishops got themselves such a great product, people will pay.  If not, tough shiite!  Guess that God didn't INTEND for the chuch to survive!  That's the way the religion crumbles I guess!  I'm sick of their meddling where they don't belong.

Gut punch (0.00 / 0)
I think the passage of HR-3962 is further evidence that the country has become ungovernable. At its core, the bill is a Faustian bargain with the health insurance industry: "you stop opposing health care reform, and we'll provide you with customers via the individual mandate." The price for the Democratic Party? Abandoning its 2008 platform pledge to achieve universal coverage:

"While there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of covering every American, with everyone in and no one left out, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process."

HR-3962 may, eventually, cover 96 percent of American citizens and legal residents. But "everyone in" means everyone: 100 percent. On this, the Democratic Party has failed those who supported its candidates in 2008.

As a question of public policy, health care reform is easy. Only a single-payer systems covers all. And it does it at the lowest cost. There's really little dispute about that among reasonably informed people with open minds.

Unfortunately, Congress is no longer able to legislate sweeping reforms such as Social Security, Medicare, or the Civil Rights Act. A year ago, under duress, Congress approved legislation to bail out the big banks, and did so in just a few weeks, but it has not followed up by enacting the reforms necessary to protect the nation from reckless and predatory banking. Why? Because the pirates of Wall Street used big campaign contributions to buy most members of both parties. The same holds true for Big Pharma and health insurance.

A equally important factor is the intensity with which so many Democrats embrace market based solutions. They've been reading Ayn Rand when they should have been study James K. and John Kenneth Galbraith. In particular, they should be reading James K. Galbraith's book, "The Predator State." This almost religious devotion to free markets can convince otherwise rational beings that there is a market based solution to health care reform, when in fact the notion that there is a market based solution is a delusion, a chimera.

So we are left with HR-3962, which won't get the job done, because our political system prevents, rather than enables, sweeping reforms when sweeping reforms are needed. A nation whose decision making systems are ossified to such an extent is a nation that's losing the ability to govern itself.

I applaud Dennis Kuninich's decision to vote against HR-3962, and urge all to read his statement explain his vote, which is available on his Congressional website.


A agree in total .. (0.00 / 0)
Here in CO we are being deluged with ads telling people to contact Congress because of the Medicare cuts - that is, cuts to Medicare Advantage, which is the side door subsidy of the health insurance industry passed several years ago. It's crazy expensive and drains $$$ from regular Medicare. Maybe that opposition from insurance companies will kill the whole bill.

So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the bill regarding cost containment - perhaps some future resistance to price increases that are going to go down after 2012. As I remember, there is a clause in the bill that mandates payout of 85% premiums in medical payments (they are currently around 80%.) But there is also a provision that allows them to boost premiums at the same time by 25%. So it's a meaningless gesture to increase payout if it only means that the policy that existed before paid 80% of 100% and becomes 85% of 125%. Sneaky devils.  


[ Parent ]
the fault for this travesty lies with (1.00 / 1)

The ppl like Forward Montana, HCAN, SEIU and their stupid willfully ignorant nauseating push for Public Option. A RUSE par excellence from the get go. You corporate shills were either 'played' or you are in with the Insurance Cartel.
Had you the intelligence to Push for Single Payer we would NOT be in this debacle. Idiots!!!

Point the finger at yourselves, then shove your two-bit luzer Public Option bull shit where the sun doesn't shine.  


Accusations (0.00 / 0)
Not very helpful.  There are good reasons to favor a public option over single payer.  Something tells me, you've no interest in even considering them.

[ Parent ]
As it turns out ... (0.00 / 0)
we could not have done worse had you simply gone for broke. You compromised and got stuffed, and are now telling us that you did the smart thing.

Right.  


[ Parent ]
~sigh~ (0.00 / 0)
The part you have missed for months, Mark, is that I did "go for broke".  I supported exactly what I wanted, not what I thought I could compromise with.  Let me be plain, since you seem too dim to get the obvious:

I don't want single payer mandated to the American people until they choose it.


[ Parent ]
You really haven't a clue how the two-party system works ... (0.00 / 0)
If you don't understand politics, politics shall be done unto you. (Nader 4: 3..11).

[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
HCAN et al are pushing for a public option because they know that single payer has no chance at all of passing; there are too many legislators without the spine to vote for it.  

A properly structured public option is a hell of a lot better than what we have now, although, from what I can tell, the current offering isn't so great.  The only way I see the public option doing much good is if it is an option for every American, not just those without employer-provided insurance.  

Also, when did the evangelicals take over the Democratic Party?  I expect anti-choice B.S. from Republicans and a few backwoods Dems, but come on.  When your party controls a significant majority of a chamber of Congress, and your party's platform (http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html) states: "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to undermine that right," how the HELL do you let an amendment come to a vote, much less pass, which definitely undermines a woman's right to choose if she can't pay?  Ridiculous.


[ Parent ]
I think everyone who was inside knew the public option was a bargaining chip from the start. (0.00 / 0)
It was something to organize on, something to raise money on, and something to roll over on. My prediction is that the Senate will either remove it entirely or they will go the trigger route.

I also predict the senate will remove the provision for negotiating drug prices, since Max will want that done for his owners.

As a bill, we will end up with a national version of Romney Care. HCAN et al. knew this from the start, If they didn't, they are a lot stupider than i am.

The House blue dogs won't be able to oppose the bill when it has no PO, even if the Hyde amendment is simply re-affirmed and the Stupak amendment is removed.

All the left has to work or hope for is some form of the Kucinich/Sanders/Wellstone idea to place an amendment in the bill that will allow states to form their own single payer system.

I suggest the left give up on the PO joke/scam, in fact they should reject the trigger as a sham, and instead demand our few representatives threaten to with hold their votes if their isn't a provision allowing states to enact their own single payer system if they choose to do so. It should start with Sanders in the Senate, maybe joined by, who, Kerry? Franken as a tribute to Wellstone? (he introduced a bill to do that back in the 90s) Tester would be politically smart to  join it, he could use some help with the left here at home, since he seems to have forgotten we exist.

We need to work for a tiny kernel of hope in an otherwise shitty corporate giveaway bill that will enshrine the health insurance industry as the undisputed arbiters of our health care through federal law.

No cost containment will mean that this isn't a solution, just a short term money bomb until something else has to be done down the road.  And maybe that something should start in the states. I don't think the Federal Government is up to it.


[ Parent ]
Pelosi already said (0.00 / 0)
that the Kucinich amendment was stripped because it violated Obama's pledge that if you have insurance you like, you can keep it. And if a state goes single payer, then you don't get to keep it.

So Pelosi stabbed Dennis and single payer advocates in the back with that one, says Kucinich: "at the request of the administration". Why am I not surprised?  


[ Parent ]
Every now and then ... (0.00 / 0)
somethign ought to come down in our favor from these guys ...

But all we get are excuses

And apologists for the excuse-makers.


[ Parent ]
Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
I don't think state opt-in single-payer has any chance of passing.  The liberal caucus should have pushed single-payer harder, as a bargaining position.  The public option IS the compromise, but the left has allowed it to become the liberal option in this debate.  So, I think we'll be lucky to get even that.  That said, I'm still hopeful (maybe naively so) that we will get some sort of decent reform bill out of this whole thing.  A lot of people really want real health care reform, since it's been promised to them, and the conservadems will have to decide between pissing off the base or appeasing their insurance co. contributers. It should be interesting to see the choices they make, and the political ramifications of those choices.  Of course, if Congress passes a complete shill give-away bill, we'll all be worse off and I don't see how the Dems will have a chance of holding onto their majorities; they'll be exposed as (as some friends of mine claim) corporate enablers masquerading as populists.  

[ Parent ]
I suspect if our leaders ever move beyond the the abortion blockage (0.00 / 0)
somebody will introduce an amendment prohibiting federal health care dollars to same sex couples.

According to Politifact (0.00 / 0)
this statement:

"First, Democrats struck a deal over healthcare to win the support of Catholic bishops by allowing an amendment to reach the House floor that would disallow any insurance passed in the health insurance exchange to cover elective abortion procedures."

appears to be false.  http://politifact.com/truth-o-...

=================
On one issue right off the bat, we believe Lowey is misleading. The Stupak amendment -- which now accounts for about four pages of the nearly 2,000-page bill -- does not address the entire "private health insurance market." Rather, it addresses how abortion coverage would be handled within the health insurance "exchanges" included in the Democratic-sponsored House health care bill. These exchanges would provide a virtual marketplace for health insurance for those who do not already have coverage through their employer or through a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid.

The exchange is designed for people who are self-employed or work for very small businesses -- but it would serve at most a small fraction of Americans, since most people get their insurance either through their employer, a spouse's employer or through existing government programs. So, by not specifying that she's talking about how abortion coverage would be handled in the exchange, Lowey immediately makes the issue seem to affect many more people than it actually does...

The amendment says that individuals buying insurance on the exchange may still purchase coverage that includes abortions as long as no federal money is used. It also says that insurers may still offer abortion coverage as long as such coverage, and the administrative structure behind it, is not supported by federal money, and as long as their insurance offerings on the exchange include two nearly identical options, one of which covers abortion services and one of which does not.

Whether someone would be affected by the restriction depends on whether they receive what the bill calls "affordability credits" -- federal subsidies that would help the lower-middle class buy coverage.
=================================

If Politifact is right, perhaps some clarification is in order.


Why keep beating a dead horse? (0.00 / 0)
Stupak's amendment won't see the light of day in conference. If it does, expect a lot of democrats to bite the dust in the election next year.

[ Parent ]
And deservedly so. (0.00 / 0)
But the fact that the amendment was passed by the House is still a slap in the face.

[ Parent ]
It does if it's put in at conference. And the left could make that their price for (0.00 / 0)
final passage of the bill,  since it's quite obvious that the PO has been dead since last June and every week since.

Kucinich's state single payer option is one of two amendments to get bipartisan support, the Stupak abortion amendment being the other.

I'm pretty sure the feds have less reservation about a state passing single payer than about them passing it. It's one of those off the radar type things that they could live with if the PO is removed.

It's not their fault, after all, if a state passes single payer.

Kucinich pointed out that we still have one last chance, and that's at conference. There is no reason not to go for it and every reason to go for it from my point of view.

Snowe, Joe, Nelson, Lincoln, Baucus, Kent, and what's her name from LA aren't to hot on the PO, even the tiny crippled up arthritic PO the house passed.

So we pull it (the PO)  to get the votes in the Senate, then in conference the progressive caucus which is the largest block in congress, demands the reinclusion of the bipartsan state single payer amendment, which costs nothing, and does nothing, unless a state at some point in the future decides to pass it. Not Joe's problem, some states problem at some future time.

The house Blue dogs have to vote for the bill because it has no PO, Joe, Snowe, Nelsen, et al have to vote for the bill because it has no PO.

And the left actually gets the Wellstone Bill passed.

I could live with that compromise. But i couldn't live with any other configuration I can see passing. And that's the truth. Just Romney Care isn't going to cut it. And the PO is already dead in both the house and the Senate.



I think the state single-payer inclusion (0.00 / 0)
would be great too. I just don't think that with Pelosi and Kucinich's statements about WH interference, that conference will roll it out. I'd love to be wrong about that.

We'll see where the principles get applied: whether its more important to ignore the status quo on abortion rights (keep Stupak), or to uphold campaign rhetoric about "you can keep it if you like it" (and not include state single payer).

If you look at the history of Medicare in Canada, it started at the province level, and escalated to the national model as citizens discovered how much they liked the model. Tommy Douglass has been named the greatest Canadian for his role in setting up the Saskatchewan system.


[ Parent ]
As a commentator on MPR said the other night, both Stupak and the sunsetting of SCHIP violate (0.00 / 0)
the pledge that people who like what they have can keep it.

Women who are currently covered for abortion services  under their private insurance likely wouldn't be under the Stupak amendment, and kids and families who like SCHIP don't count apparently to Obama and Pelosi.

So keeping the bi-partisan Kucinich amendment out of the bill based on that "get to keep what you like" pledge is a hypocritical bunch of bs

Men get to keep what they like, apparently, for themselves. But women and children will have to take what Obama and Pelosi tell them they have to take.


[ Parent ]
Steve W, please prove you claim (0.00 / 0)
"Women who are currently covered for abortion services  under their private insurance likely wouldn't be under the Stupak amendment..."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/p...



[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox