The Senate Dems should be showered in poop for even considering the idea that they should deny health care coverage for abortions in order to curry favor with the wingnut Republican fashion. News alert: you have sixty votes. That means there is no plausible reason for seriously engaging the knuckle draggers, let alone with this sort of talk and activity.
Those sixty seats you have are nice and comfy, it would be a shame if someone were to take them away for you simply because you decided it would be nice to get an invite to a wingnut coffee party.
The Senate Dems should be showered in poop for even considering the idea that they should deny health care coverage for abortions in order to curry favor with the wingnut Republican fashion.
Minor point of clarification, OW.
The story you link doesn’t report that Dems are considering this. Of the stories that story links to, only one cites an entirely unsourced rumor that it’s so.
How about not pissing on your own team without getting the facts first?
Considering what I’ve seen from Team Harry Reid since Jan, I put the burden on them. They need to quit pissing on us first.
For more details see:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/06/abortion-sfc/
and
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/06/abortion-sfc/
I wonder how many pro-lifers will exclaim that they don’t want their taxes used for “killing babies,” yet currently pay private insurers who have plans that cover abortion.
News Alert to OW: Democrats are not a monolithic group. And the idea that reaching the magic ‘60′ should give way to a Barry dictatorship is ludicrous at best.
All these stories keep linking back to a site called Raising Women’s Voices and quoting this:
Wierdly, the quoted text doesn’t appear in the linked story.
Also mentioned frequently is a Statement of Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, but that statement doesn’t say anything about a compromise either.
In short, none of the links provide anything to back up the idea that Democrats are looking to compromise on this.
So when has a lede on an Oliver posting had anything to do with the underlying story? The specialty of the house, inflammatory propaganda.
I wonder how many pro-lifers will exclaim that they don’t want their taxes used for “killing babies,” yet currently pay private insurers who have plans that cover abortion.
I wonder how many Democratics recognize the difference between private insurers (which can be changed or dropped with comparativly minimal hassle) and a government plan (where to change it, you’d have to move to a different country.)
it’s all about having a choice. I thought you guys were all for that!
private insurers (which can be changed or dropped with comparativly minimal hassle)
Incorrect.
SaveFarris: “private insurers (which can be changed or dropped with comparativly minimal hassle)”
QiaB: “Incorrect.”
It’s like these people live in a different world.
SaveFarris, I wonder if you understand that the public option competes with private insurance and does not replace it. Were you imagining Obama coming to your door to take away your health insurance policy?
CS,
You have much real world experience with American insurance companies? My experience is you can change them hassle free once a year and with a minimal hassle the rest of the time. We do live in a different world, it’s called the United States.
limulus has a keen understanding of competition and subsidies.
Don’t be stupid. The country is more pro-choice than pro-life, but the country also opposes federal funding of abortion by a wide margin.
Secondly, abortions usually aren’t health care. They are usually equivalent to plastic surgery or Viagra.
If we’re going to have an affordable health care plan, we can’t be paying for these types of things. Abortion in cases where the mother’s health is at risk, yes, that’s health care and should be funded. But elective abortions are called elective for a reason, and should only be paid for out of the family’s own funds.
Besides, abortions are cheap precisely because most abortions are paid for in cash. If the government funds the majority of abortions, they’ll triple in price within a few years.
Adam, I see where you’re coming from, but can health care that doesn’t cover abortion really be called “universal”?
Universal* Health Care
*Some restrictions apply if you lack a penis.
My experience is you can change them hassle free once a year and with a minimal hassle the rest of the time. We do live in a different world, it’s called the United States.
Sorry, AO, but you can’t pull the “but-you-live-in-Canada” number on me. My employer offers insurance from one company–take it or leave it. If I choose to make a change, I’m on my own.
That’s not exactly “hassle free.”
Quaker,
When I’ve participate in corporate America we selected from a menu once a year. If you wanted to change the first answer was no, but a very small amount of assertiveness would bring you what you wanted. The bulk of my time has been spent running my own show. The opportunities to change are wide open. The bitch being you are generally using after tax dollars and you get pushed around a little more lacking the volume incentive.
Right winger “Amused Observer”, who takes the ‘I’ve got mine screw you’ approach to health care, falsely asserts that “you can change them hassle free once a year and with a minimal hassle the rest of the time.”
For the vast majority of Americans that’s absolutely false.
For a wealthy minority it might not be a problem (and that’s who right winger “Amused Observer” is serving).
But even then it depends on your health conditions.
Add up enough pre-existing conditions and general poor health and even a wealthy person will have a hard time getting an insurance company to sign them on.
“My experience is you can change them hassle free once a year and with a minimal hassle the rest of the time. We do live in a different world, it’s called the United States.”
Um, if you have a pre-existing condition private insurance companies will refuse you and you’re bankrupt for the rest of your life, even if you make a decent amount of money.
My experience (luckily) has been that I haven’t needed surgery or medication for over a decade since a sports injury in college, but I’m an outlier.
People don’t mind spending their money for health-care, but the American system as of now is completely broken. Sick people don’t make money for the insurance companies, and IMO the insurance companies should be gotten rid of. Doctor, patient, single-payer. Cut out the non-medical middlemen.
Right winger “Adam Herman”: “abortions usually aren’t health care.
When pregnant women’s lives are at stake it is.
“They are usually equivalent to plastic surgery or Viagra.”
Men’s Viagra is often covered by insurance.
“Adam Herman”, you are either uninformed or being deliberately misleading.
Changing your health insurance plan is definitely easier than changing your citizenship. Which was the point.
“I wonder if you understand that the public option competes with private insurance and does not replace it.”
I wonder if you understand that the public option is explicitly designed to replace private insurance.
I believe that’s what the “usually” was excluding. I don’t think elective abortion should be paid for by any insurance, private or public. When it stops being hypothetical and they have to actually manage a budget, they’ll be cutting out more than what private insurance doesn’t cover anyway. Of all the things to worry about with a public plan, over-coverage is not one of them.
“Buzz”, you do realize the absurdity of having men’s Viagra covered by insurance but not women’s reproductive options?
And “SaveFarris”, the only way that a public option could replace private insurance is if Government provided a superior plan and private corporations weren’t able to compete.
Nobody will prevent you from paying for a private insurance plan.
If you are saying that private corporations can’t compete with services provided by public government, “SaveFarris”, than a core claim by the right wing is a complete lie.
Abortion is often elective, sure. So is pregnancy, should we not cover that? Heck, it’s much more pricey than abortion.
the only way that a public option could replace private insurance is if Government provided a superior plan and private corporations weren’t able to compete.
… OR … if you stacked the deck so that companies who don’t subscribe to the Government plan are severely economically hindered, which the linked article proves is exactly the case.
Excellent point, “tim”.
“SaveFarris”, if the government plan is cheaper and provides the same or better coverage as private insurance companies, than (non-insurance) companies that subscribe to the government plan would both save money and provide better health coverage for their employees.
What you are arguing for is a defense of the inflated prices of the corporate-medical-insurance companies that are largely just a monopoly racket.
The public plan will not provide better coverage than private plans, and private plans would have to “compete” with a public plan that doesn’t need to be profitable. It’s a run of the mill anti-trust type scenario.
“Buzz Killington”: “The public plan will not provide better coverage than private plans”
Nonsense. You don’t and can’t know that.
I’ve had incredibly sucky private plans, it would take very little for a public plan to beat them.
As for the “anti-trust type scenario”, the health care monopoly currently enjoyed by the corporate-medical-industry is currently NOT competitive.
That’s one of the reasons corporate-medical-insurance companies can charge extortionist rates and walk away with billions looted from the healthcare-system: “while the opponents of a
privatepublic plan say that they’re trying to defend market competition, what they’re actually doing is defending lucrative local monopolies.”The corporate-medical-insurance company monopolies aren’t a new thing, it’s been well known that health insurance monopolies have been growing for years.
Corporate-monopolies are inherently anti-competitive.
Right wingers are supporting anti-competitive monopolies.
Period.
I’ve had incredibly sucky private plans, it would take very little for a public plan to beat them
And that’s exactly what you’d get with a public plan: very little.
We have some helplessly naive people here.
So your preferred solution to a private pseudo-monopoly is to create have government take over most, if not all of that system? Look how that approach is working with our schools.
Additionally, there are other options besides government run healthcare and doing nothing.
When I’ve participate in corporate America we selected from a menu once a year.
Did those “menus” offer choices from different companies? Or just different plans from one company?
Farris’ assertion is that one can change providers without much hassle. That has never been my experience.
SaveFarris, the article you linked to completely ignores the fact that a public plan still needs to be payed for by the policyholder or employer. If employers are going to drop their plans and save money by not paying for employee health coverage, they can do that now. What seems more likely to me is that employers will start offering the public plan along side the private ones.
“Buzz Killington”, let’s be clear, you’ve taken the right wing position of defending the corporate-medical-insurance-industries monopolostic overcharging at the expense of Americans’ health.
Your system means that Americans’ have shorter life spans and a worse infant mortality rate than the ‘government’ systems you casually dismiss. Other countries governments pay less and get better results than the overcharging private, corporate-system you’re arguing on behalf of.
Those are American babies and American grandparents you’ve turned your back on, “Buzz Killington”.
You’re position is a betrayal of what our American Constitution refers to as promoting the “general Welfare” of the American citizenry.
The Associated Press article you cite is interesting, “SaveFarris”, it includes some interesting statistics that can be read to support a public option such as: US healthcare is twice as expensive and yet provides worse results than other nations.
“According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. spent $7,290 per person in 2007, while Britain spent $2,992 and France spent $3,601.”
It was interesting to read Associated Press writer Maria Cheng’s seemingly misleading wording of death rates in Britain. When I first read the article it sounded like the US had the same or better death rates than Britain.
That’s wrong, a quick check of the 2009 CIA Factbook showed that the United Kingdom (Britain) has a longer life expectancy than US. The United Kingdom’s rank is #36, the US is ranked #50 for life expectancy (expected length of life). France is ranked #9.
Brits live longer than US and pay a lot less to do it.
The US also ranks poorly on infant mortality rates in 2009, 44 other countries beat US. United Kingdom beats US coming in at #39, France beats US coming in at #8.
And the World Health Organization ranked the US #37 out 191 countries in 2000.
A better article is “Healthy examples: Plenty of countries get healthcare right” from the Boston Globe.
SaveFarris, I wonder if you understand that the public option competes with private insurance and does not replace it. Were you imagining Obama coming to your door to take away your health insurance policy?
He doesn’t. He was.
SaveFarris: “Changing your health insurance plan is definitely easier than changing your citizenship. Which was the point.”
Except if you are actually sick.
Then you might not be able to get health insurance. Period.
If you have a pass illness, you can be denied health insurance.
If you are healthy now, it should be very easy to change citizenship.
Of course, to change national health care, you just need to vote for different politicians.
However, since the party you support will likely be a minority party for a while, I can see your point.
Amused Observer: “We have some helplessly naive people here.”
Yes we do.
Like the people who decide to attack my nationality instead of the facts.
“You have much real world experience with American insurance companies?”
Do you have any experience with Canadian Heath Care? You seem to have a lot of opinions on the matter.
I guess that makes you a hypocrite, as well as a fucking ‘tard.
There are a lot here that think ‘Socialized Health Care’ will somehow cost more, even though it costs less in every other industrialized nation.
Why do you think that will happen?
SaveFarris: I wonder how many Democratics [sic]recognize the difference between private insurers (which can be changed or dropped with comparativly minimal hassle)
BWAH HA HA HA HA! Oh, Farris. You have such a wicked sense of humor.
Amused 0: My experience is you can change them hassle free once a year and with a minimal hassle the rest of the time.
I assume you have no pre-existing conditions, then?
Sean D. Martin: “I assume you have no pre-existing conditions, then?”
Their health care plan really is, ‘Don’t get sick.’