Dennis Kucinich is apparently voting against the health care bill in the House. Why? His stated reason is that because it isn’t single payer. If that’s the reasoning, that is ridiculous. This bill, an imperfect bill no doubt, is the biggest step forward in American health care since the creation of medicare. If the bill faced easy passage, Kucinich’s position might be understandable, but its unconscionable for a supposed strong progressive like Kucinich to give aid and comfort to conservative efforts to not help Americans in need.
Yes, I would say letting a handful of blue dogs pass an amendment that essentially requires most private health insurers to stop providing abortion services is “imperfect.”
Democrats: taking only 3 years to pass abortion restrictions that Republicans couldn’t get in 10. 2010 landslide baby!
I’m not happy about that either, but there’s less than a month to pass any of this reform seriously.
Perfect can’t be enemy of the good, especially stuff you could theoretically go back and fix.
Stupak’s amendment is the opposite of “reform.” It’s a fucking abortion ban. I have zero support for the bill if it stays in, and at this point would be happy to see it fail. And if that makes me “ridiculous” because I happen to not support a bill that effectively now TAKES HEALTH RIGHTS AWAY, well then I guess we have different perspectives here.
More abortion crap.
Look, the bill can be fixed going forward. In a realistic sense, abortion isn’t the greatest thing woman need right now. They need to have access to healthcare first, then abortion.
In short, you are insane to vote against this. It’s the same reason Progressives don’t get anything done for decades. It has to please absolutely everyone, etc.
Of course it’s crap if it doesn’t really affect you.
It affects everyone but it shouldn’t be used as a litmus test healthcare reform.
You guys never heard of amendments after a bill is passes?
Is it really worth it to kill the ENTIRE reform effort for this one thing.
I think not.
If it affects everyone in a negative way then why should there be a vote on it?
Since the beginning of this so-called health care reform started this year everything that would have reform it has been pushed off the table i.e single payer, and things that are opposite to reform has been added i.e insurance mandate, co-opts, etc.
What is the point in passing a bill if it does the opposite of what you want it to do? Is it only to say that a health care bill was passed, but not giving real health care reform?
It’s called getting something solid (like a public option) that has a realistic chance of passing.
In hindsight, sure, a Medicare for All bill out there would have been something nice to play off of but we can go back to the past.
RIGHT NOW, this is where we are. Kill the bill because it doesn’t have every progressive change or because every group is not 100% happy?
Listen to yourself. The fight for decent healthcare doesn’t end with this bill. It BUILDS off of it.
No, it’s not worth killing reform over – so Stupak should not have insisted on it, right?
What’s got people pissed off is not the amendment itself, so much as that it was a Democrat, and that there wasn’t some back room meeting wherein Stupak was told “you do have a right to bring this up, and we understand that it’s a deeply held principle. And we need you to understand, we won’t cheapen your principle one bit – we’ll let *everyone* see that you’ll stand up for principle even when it costs you, in every thing, in every way, that we can make it cost you. We will make you the martyr you are begging to be. So, yes, you have your rights, and we ask you to exercise them in accordance with your true principles.”
I’m with August. Any bill that requires insurers to not cover abortion is a bill not worth passing. That said, Kucinich is not voting for the bill for the wrong reason if it’s just because it’s not Single Payer. Hopefully Kucinich is shocked by this amendment and is doing his best to keep it out.
Stupak amendment not only creates largest sweeping restriction on abortion since the Hyde Amendment, but could also allow insurers a loophole to back out of covering high-risk low-income consumers, thus NEGATING THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE GODDAMN BILL:
http://bit.ly/rFz7e
And, as Oliver notes, the provision can be taken out in conference. If you are serious about this, you can pass this now and then work to remove the provision once the bills need to be reconciled.
So just for the record, which core parts of the Democratic Party platform CAN you completely sell out on before thinking there’s a problem?
Why in god’s name are you satisfied with a health care bill that removes the right to health care?
It doesn’t completely remove the right to healthcare, You are portraying a completely false narrative.
This can be fixed. You are portraying this as the end of the world.
Using your logic, kill any effort to fix healthcare reform because of this one thing. Nope, sorry.
Read this over there at Huffington Post. Part the conversation they had with Stupak….
Stupak’s amendment is extremely restrictive — any individual or any business that gets any subsidy or tax credit — which will be most people in the country — will not be able to purchase a health care plan that covers abortion, even with their own money. They can, however, buy supplemental coverage from a separate plan. Stupak’s amendment would represent the most significant rollback of reproductive rights in decades.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/house-health-care-vote-br_n_349468.html&cp
I know what it is, and it is terrible.
BUT, you don’t see what the Blue Dogs are trying to do. They don’t want to pass this bill, but they can’t look like the GOP and say no.
So, what do they do instead? Pad on poison pills to get people like August to vote the ENTIRE effort down.
Then, the Blue Dogs will talk about how they tried to compromise but the people like August couldn’t come to the middle. The bill FAILS and the purists will get the blame.
INSTEAD, let’s get the bill passed and then either get the bill changed in conference OR make the changes via an amendment.
It’s that simple. No need to crap all over years of work.
I heard on CNN that the anti-abortion Democrats worked with Catholic bishops on a amendment (not sure if it’s this one) that would force women to buy extra insurance for abortions which I find very frightening and upsetting.
The wall between church and state is just crumbling down.
What woman in the world would know if she will need an abortion in the future? This is just another way to penalize a consumer by the insurance companies and these anti-abortion Democrats are handing it to them on a plate.
He’s one of those “More Liberal Than Thou” idiots where their “stand on principals” will block progress. To use a sports analogy:
It’s like a team throwing a 70 yard completion that puts their team on the other teams 25 yard line in perfect position to put points on the board. The defense was offsides on the play. Now the obvious thing to do is decline the penalty and take the 70 yards. But since the play didn’t result in a touchdown, you accept the penalty to try for the touchdown on the next play. That’s what people like Kucinich are doing.
It’s not even that complicated. He’s a purist like the GOP who will block anything if it isn’t 100% blue.
We need that on the ground in campaigns, rallies, etc. but not in Congress.
Kucinich has always been willing to cut off his nose to spite his face. That’s the true danger of ideologues of any political stripe…they’re only interested in purity. They always have to be right all the time; never looking beyond the end of their own nose at the road in front of them.
In my opinion, he’s outlived any usefulness a long time ago.
Yep, same thing with August here.
LOL, I love it when little snots like you who don’t know what they’re talking about drop their little pissy DLC attitude about the “big tent.” Unlike you I’ve worked both for policy shops and actual legislators, and have done more to ACTUALLY help with compromises then you’ll ever do acting high and mighty on a message board.
People like you who run like scared rabbits and scoff at any idea of opposition to bad ideas within the party as “demanding purity” are exactly why horrible legislators like Stupak get elected in the first place. And yet you dare to say I’m the one doing damage to the Democrats. I’m not the one cheering an abhorrent amendment that Republicans are celebrating. How about figuring out what side YOU’RE on before pretending you know a goddamn thing.
Who the hell do you think you are, thinking you know ANYTHING about other acts the Dems have done that I’ve been accepting of for the sake of a good bill, but now that I’ve voiced a legitimate objection, one that you already got schooled on once in this very thread when you didn’t even realize what the amendment did that you kneejerk whined wasn’t a big deal, you act like the champion of common sense? You just decided to assume that because I’m angry about a terrible poison pill I’m a “Naderite.” Shut up and do some fucking research before you embarrass yourself any further.
Shorter August:
I have this huge resume, therefor I say we kill the bill even though we’ve come this far.
Awesome thinking from someone who should know how hard it is to get to this point.
Shorter Chris K: (D) must mean good. Glad I don’t need to think any harder.
Interesting to note the indigntion here regarding abortions healthcare etc.
It’s enough to question what the true agenda is behind the Obama socialized medical industry movement. In the overall picture abortions have virtually no impact on the larger issue of the high cost of healthcare. Abortions are an extremely inexpensive medical operation that impact even the most prolific abortion consumer rather infrequently. This is literally a once or twice in a lifetime medical expense that can be paid for out of pocket.
Let’s address the issues each of you bring 1 by one:
1. Oliver/Chris – your sentiment is fine for business, however, but policy MUST be perfect, because Capitol Hill has shown a proclivity for imperfect legislation, with horrible consequences. Neither party is exempt from producing “imperfect” legislation, but Social Security and Medicare stand out as examples of imperfect legislation with dire financial consequences for the nation. And look at all the “pork” that gets thrown in as riders on regular legislation. Theoretically, it could be removed, but it never is. And as an aside, what happened to Obama’s promise to remove pork? Another campaign promise, without any follow-through.
2. August/Michael – What part of abortion should I support paying for? For that matter, why should I have to pay for the lifestyle choices of Americans who can’t accept personal responsibility for their own health? Don’t get me wrong, if a woman wants to choose to get an abortion, it’s her business. But why the hell should I pay for an abortion for a couple who can’t spend $2 on a freakin’ rubber? Do either of you exercise any sense of personal responsibility, or are both of you waiting for Obama to give you everything?
3. Luv/Lee – If DK stands on principle, and he finds a single payor system to be a crucial part of reform, then why give him such heartburn? We need more politicians to stand on political principle rather than political expediency.
And for you all – we live in a market-based economy. The only right our Constitution has provided is equal protection under the law to pursue opportunity. It doesn’t offer equal privilege or entitlement. If you want that, move to a socialist country. Jeez, even China is moving to a market-based economy…
What defines perfect? There is NO set of legislation that is perfect, anywhere in the world.
We point to Europe as shining examples of how healthcare can be provided, but even they run up deficits, etc. with their systems.
The point of legislation isn’t to be perfect, but to SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
I’d HAPPILY take huge deficits if it meant we would get affordable healthcare for everyone.
We will always find things to improve. Now? Let’s get the ball rolling first.
*Sigh* for the answer to number 2 go down to Ben’s response to Save.
There is nothing in the health care reform bill saying the government will fund abortions….NOTHING!
The Stupak amendment will not allow anyone(even businesses)to purchase insurance plans that have abortion coverage if they receive subsidies from the government even if they choose a private insurance company plan.
The government already has a Federal law that doesn’t allow any government funding of abortion.
No one is going to have to pay for someone’s abortion, but the Stupak will make a person or company pay extra insurance just for abortion coverage.
why should I have to pay for the lifestyle choices of Americans who can’t accept personal responsibility for their own health?
Do you have any concept of what “insurance” actually is?
It’s an “all hands on deck” situation here. The closest we’ll probably come in the next 10-15 years to advancing the ball all the way…Medicare For All. Remember…the fight beginning in the early 1900s ended in Soc. Sec.; the fight in the 40s-60s gave us Medicare. Every push for Universal Care advances the ball further. Would I like a “0ne and done”, top of the line bill? Absolutely! I also know that the votes for that don’t exist. So we get what we can get today; and come back for more.
I hate this bit-by-bit approach but it’s what we’ve got to deal with. We come back again and again until it’s done. DK’s principles are fine and dandy…but the people who will be helped by this current effort can’t wait on DK’s principles. And they shouldn’t have to be sacrificed so DK can remain pure.
Bart Stupak’s the Randall Terry of our party
Abortion coverage could be covered separately by increased funding for Planned Parenthood etc. Not a good solution, but perhaps workable.
If the bill doesn’t pass then there’s a much bigger and more deadly set of issues that could not be addressed, even badly.
Just get it done. Once it’s done, the public will demand more from its health care system and all politicians will work for more reform, if they want to get in or stay in office. Without the momentum created by a first step, nothing will get done. This could be a once in a life time moment as some have said. Just do it. Doubters should rally behind the reform.
An unintended consequence of this reform, if passed, might be the final nail in the coffin of the Republican extremists by exploding the developing schism within its rank. The moderates will work within the context of the reform and the loons will be still screaming communism/nazism from the sidelines.
This discussion is symptomatic of the whole problem with the Democratic Party and why I may occasionally vote for them but would not want to consider myself one of them. What the heck are their core beliefs? What the heck was their strategy on healthcare reform? Who were their allies? Who are the influencers?
Kucinich isn’t the problem. He’s just an ideologue of a certain type.
Lost in the smoke of battle is the fact that Kuncinich is correct. Without a single payer system all else is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic. Without the Government ABILITY to negotiate drug prices and Doctors rates, etc., etc. – on a National scale you are just putting yellow paint on a green chair.
An improvement? If millions more are forced into private insurance – the only winners long term will be – the Insurance Companies. This whole thing reeks, absolutely reeks.
Without QUESTION – Americans don’t elect Governments – you elect oligopolies of Capitalist Interests Groups – ugly – appallingly ugly.
The Stupak Amendment merely puts into writing what Obama promised.
Otherwise, Obama owes Joe Wilson an apology.
Um, no. That had to do with the public insurance plan covering abortion. What Stupak wants to do is prevent any insurance plan from covering abortion if there is any chance that health care subsidies might be given to a person with that insurance plan.
If the Stupak amendment did the same thing with Viagra prescriptions it would never have gotten this far.
Amen to that!
I get the women’s rights implications but I also know that, based on reports, we may not have gotten the support from some key members of the Blue Dog caucus without at least putting this amendment to a vote.
We can work to remove the worst provisions in conference. Let’s get some people healthcare instead of doing nothing.
How can you give people health care while blocking people from getting health care?
Once again…
1). This can be fixed in Conference or amended in the future.
2). Abortion is not the entirety of healthcare, even for women. Ask most women.
3). You don’t see that you are being used by the Blue Dogs so that they can kill the ENTIRE REFORM effort. They are using abortion to get folks to hate the entire bill. Then they you blame YOU for not compromising.
First of all I’m not advocating for a no vote on the whole bill but about the Stupak amendment (which they are debating on now).
I want the health bill to pass, but we need to stand up and voice our opinions on what we want in and out of the bill.
Stupak personally doesn’t care about fixing health care. He only wants to be a obstructionist like the Republicans and fill the bill with junk. If you think you will have an easier time reforming the reform bill think again. We’re you in a coma over this pass summer when Democrats and the White House compromise to get where we are at now, and we still don’t have the health care form that we need. We can’t let the bill be filled with junk and call it reform. And I’m far from being the one being used.
Even the US Conference of Catholic Bishops disagrees with this amendment.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/7/801879/-HCR-House-Debate:-Catholics-for-Choice-Say-Stupak-Amendment-Unconscionable,-Stupak-Smirks
Oops should be “Were you…”
Another oops, it should be Catholics for Choice not US Conference of Catholic Bishops that disagree with the amendment.
I am so pissed that the Stupak amendment passed.
Yet again Democrats are giving in hopes of receiving.
Bill just passed, although I’m upset about the Stupak amendment I think we’ll probably see it removed when the bills are merged.
We can only hope.
CJ
I’m hopeful the provisions will be removed upon reconciliation. For these blue dog dems its really not about principles but about re-election in moderate/conservative districtts. So they vote for and pass this anti-abortion amendment and then vote for the bill as a whole. Then, hopefully, it comes out in conference but they have that vote and the amendment to wave around – even if the final bill deletes it.
That’s my cynical view of the sausage being made. An accomodation to these dems for ‘face’.
But why the hell should I pay for an abortion for a couple who can’t spend $2 on a freakin’ rubber
1. Condoms can break. No form of physical contraception is 100% perfect.
2. The last 8 years of public sex ed. has been plagued by something called “abstinence only education”, which has made a generation of teenagers ignorant of contraception.
For that matter, why should I have to pay for the lifestyle choices of Americans who can’t accept personal responsibility for their own health?
Because that’s not how a representative democracy works. By that logic, I shouldn’t have had to pay for a dime on the Iraq War. But guess what…
Also, how can this be called “universal” health care if it doesn’t cover an aspect of women’s reproductive health?
There are thousands of women who require abortions since their own life is at stake. To reduce the issue to simply that of perceived “loose women” is ignorant and inhumane.