• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Propertius on Happy Tolkien Reading Day
    thewizardofroz on Is “Balance of Nature…
    Branjor on Is “Balance of Nature…
    riverdaughter on Happy Tolkien Reading Day
    Propertius on Happy Tolkien Reading Day
    Propertius on Throwback Thursday: Corey the…
    Propertius on Throwback Thursday: Corey the…
    jmac on Throwback Thursday: Corey the…
    William on Throwback Thursday: Corey the…
    William on Is “Balance of Nature…
    thewizardofroz on Is “Balance of Nature…
    Beata on Is “Balance of Nature…
    William on Is “Balance of Nature…
    Beata on Is “Balance of Nature…
    seagrl on Why is something so easy so di…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    March 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – March 26, 2023
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – March 26, 2023 by Tony Wikrent   “U.S. Announces Plans To Reclassify Everyone’s Race Based On Net Worth” [The Onion, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 3-25-2023] “‘It is resolved by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives that any American whose wealth exceeds $1 million shall be white,’ read the bipartisan legislatio […]
  • Top Posts

Health Care Reform: Women Will Walk

I’ve been trying to keep a low profile on the health care reform bill.  For the record, I am not in the “kill the bill” camp.  I’m in the “fix it now, not later” camp.  I follow my old inorganic chemistry prof’s admonition, “If you don’t have the time to do it right, when will you have the time to do it over?”  Make no mistake, if the bill that gets voted on today isn’t the right one, it will not be changed for a very long time – if ever.  And what we have right now is a bill that locks the vast majority of us into contracts with  insurance companies that are hoping to add a lot of new hostages customers to its profit making business.

As a woman of Obama’s age cohort, divorced, with a respectable but unremarkable income, and with a teenage girl as a dependent who isn’t covered by any other health insurance policy other than the one I receive from my employer, I am particularly ticked at this bill in its presently unfixed state.  I’ll only qualify for an exemption from the excise tax if I’m a family of four and my health care policy is $23000.  Along with feathering my 401K so that the predators of Wall Street can fritter it away in emerging markets, paying for my mortgage and ridiculously high property taxes AND paying the single rate on my income taxes, when exactly am I supposed to save for college for the adolescent?  Would it be OK for the idiots in Congress if I kept some of the money they are planning to charge me for my health insurance coverage so that she doesn’t get saddled with a lifetime of student loan debt?

I’m actually for the mandate, believe it or not.  I think everyone *should* be required to carry health insurance.  But I have caveats.  The insurance has to be affordable, it should be subject to free market forces that encourage competition, like choice and antitrust regulations, and anyone not satisfied with their current carrier should be able to shop around.  If that was what we were getting, I’d gladly pay the tax.  But that’s not what we’re getting.

But the thing that really ticks me off is that American women are about to lose their freedom to worship (or not) as they choose.  To me, one of the most egregious things in this bill is the way that women are treated.  When we are considered at all, our reproductive health seems to be in a special category, one where a bunch of old guys in red beanies and pointy hats, have the final say as to what is or isn’t acceptable.  If the Senate bill passes, it will perfectly acceptable to force women to identify themselves as considering abortion as a healthcare option when they sign up for insurance.  It’s to shame them.  No, no, don’t try to sugar coat this.  That is the intention.  To keep abortion as a shameful procedure.

I can just hear the anti-choice crowd now.  “Why should we pay for something that’s going to offend our consciences?”  Jeez, I dunno.  Why do I have to pay for faith based initiatives?  How about we pass a separate bill that requires all of the religious people out there to write separate checks to cover church based charities that discriminate against the gay community or actively practice discrimination in their church hierarchy?  That kind of crap really frosts my crockies and offends my conscience down to the quick but I still have to pay for it.  There is no little box on the tax return form that says, “Would you like to make a donation to faith based initiatives?  Or war in Iraq?  Or TARP?” No, all of the stupid laws and bills and war resolutions that have passed in the past decade because it was possible to fool enough of the people most of the time have cost me and my cohort and we have had very little choice in the matter.  A Republican dictator president wielded his veto pen like it was a baton and threatened to use it with relish. We just had to go along with it.

But not anymore.

This is a Congress that we elected and it is a president that the deluded foisted upon the rest of us.  We expected them to be different from their immediate predecessors.  Well, we expected some congress members to be different.  The Confluence never expected anything different from Obama but we thought he could be prevailed upon to not veto what Congress passed.  And this Congress is overwhelmingly Democratic.  These are the very same Democrats who scared the deluded into voting for Obama in 2008 because they convinced young women of child bearing age that only he and they could protect the reproductive rights of women.

They made that promise and we will hold them to it.

That is not to say that protecting reproductive rights is anything like guaranteeing equality under the law.  No.  It is not the same.  Young women should not kid themselves into thinking that Roe v. Wade means you’re equal.  Gender equity was not something Democrats promised in 2008.  But they did promise to protect reproductive rights on nearly every blog the Obama trolls invaded.  Isn’t that what the Democrats promised?  Or is it what we *thought* they promised?  What if they didn’t promise anything?  What if all they really did was turn up to 11 the fear of Sarah Palin and her anti-choice crusaders?  What if they had no intention of protecting your rights?

People will say and do anything when they want power.  Power, in my humble opinion, is more important than money.  People accumulate money so they can buy power.  Democrats want power.  They have no idea how to use it when they get it but that’s what they want.  Voters also have power.  Women voters have a lot of power.  And it doesn’t take many of us to throw some cowardly Democrats out of power.  With so many voters hypnotized by Glenn Beck and Fox News, this is not a good time to be pissing off women.

Maybe they didn’t promise us gender equity, but they made enough noise about reproductive rights that women who voted for Democratic Congress members will be righteously indignant if those rights are not preserved and reproductive choice and care is not covered fully in the health care reform bill at a price that does not discriminate against women.  A Congress person who holds firm in their unwavering support for women will get our unwavering support in return.  But the Democratic party as a whole should tread very carefully in this area because if they don’t do health care reform right the first time, women will walk. The Democrats premised their whole party identity on protecting the rights of women.  If they don’t do that, they have no credibilty.  If they don’t stick up for women and working class people in general, their identity as a party is meaningless.

We will turn our backs on the Democrats and walk away.  And as for your power?


186 Responses

  1. I think we already walked away.

    • There are enough of us and the number will grow. I have absolutely no doubt of that.
      Once it’s law, it will be very, VERY hard to overturn. Just think about how the funding for the Iraq War has gone. We hate the war. They fund it anyway.

      • did you mean to say you are or are not in the kill the bill category? I think THIS bill needs to die and I don’t believe their bullshit about it not ever being re-visited.

        • Agreed. Even if this bill passes, it’s at best a bandaid that distracts from any real improvement to health care finance.

        • Nope. I’m a fix it person. We need health care reform. I think Dems should withdraw the bill, avoid a humiliating defeat, go back to the drawing board, do their research, develop their message that all of the blogs can support and *COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORE EVERYTHING THE REPUBLICANS SCREAM ABOUT*.
          You might not get singlee payer, but you might get something everyone can live with.

        • yup…this bill needs to die and everyone involved in trying to shove it down our throats should lose their next election. Shame on them, the bill was never about doing right for the American people.
          It is all about being “Historical”

      • Or, think of the nearly universally loathed Patriot Act. It was renewed in the last minute.
        or NCLB – there was a movement amongst states – red and blue alike to repeal it. Obama was installed – and it gets enhanced instead.
        The interests that bring about a bad bill will make sure it stays.

    • By the way, I think you’re wrong about how many women are pissed about Stupak and Nelson’s amendments. I’ve read stories at legitimate news outlets that say that women who voted for Obama based on abortion are spitting nails.

      • they may be spitting nails, but what are they going to do about it?

        • To me, this means there’s no no difference between democrats and republicans… NONE what so ever. The democrats talk a good game but that’s it!

          • Exactamundo. They’re both owned by the same corporations, and the end result is the same. Neither party is for the people. Don’t be fooled by what they say, simply watch what they do.

        • That is really THE question in my opinion.

          Will they continue to use the same ol’ “weeeeeell the Republicans are worse.” line or will they be willing to vote him out for it.

          If I were Barack Obama I’d be sweating bullets about issuing an executive order because at that point he really loses any sort of right to be credible as a advocate of choice. Not that I really felt he was an overly strong advocate to begin with. I’m completely unsurprised that someone who voted present for political cover on choice would be willing to sell his position on it out to achieve health reform.

          I want to congratulate the Democrats though. If it weren’t for their cowardice I probably would never have seen choice as something that I would find worth basing my entire vote on. At this point if you are anti choice whether D or R I will not vote for you. Period. End of discussion.

          • Right, CW! It’s about enfranchisement/disenfranchisement. It highlights the reality that women’s enfranchisement is only window dressing. Why even vote when it serves no purpose other than propping up an illusion. The votes that count are the ones cast by those to whom politicians feel beholden. From now on, I will only vote for candidates who are beholden to women.

      • Do you think it’s 30% or more? That is a tipping point and I don’t believe we’re there.

        • Yeah, I think we are enough and Democrats know it. It doesn’t have to be 30%. it has to be women who are politically astute and who *used* to be reliably Democrat. I think there’s a name for us now. It showed up on Chris Bowers’ blog a few months ago. It’s something like liberal unaffiliateds or something like that. Our numbers are growing and we count a lot in elections when the parties have nearly equal representation. If we walk, Democrats lose. Look at Corzine and Coakley. That wasn’t a Republican triumph in either case. It was a Democratic failure. We are enough and we will be much more if this thing passes without a fix to abortion.
          In fact, don’t believe me, believe your lyin’ eyes. The last few days have been all about abortion. That’s because Democrats know their ass is glass if they fuck women over.

          • The last few days have been all about abortion because the Dems think it will have less effect than the individual mandate. They may be wrong but it’s what they believe.

            Since so few women tend to vote their own best interests, as shown by 2008, they may just be right.

          • A woman’s biological processes are the only ones regulated by the state.

          • The patriarchal commission sees value in keeping women down.

          • The Dems are right to stick to an individual mandate. In every successful health care policy around the world, the mandate is essential to making it work. The exception is Germany. Germany allows the wealthiest to opt out but since they’re having trouble meeting their budget, that may change. There’s much more solidarite in Europe than here. It may be easier to force the wealthy to opt in.

            SOD, the sticking point *is* abortion. The Dems are working overtime trying to fix the situation. But there is no fix that is going to work for their electorally except if they tell Stupak and his friends to eat it and vote for it.

            We should have all known back in 2008 when the vast majority of Democratic campaigns took reproductive issues off their websites that this was in play. In fact, we tried to tell people but they were so smitten with the Unity Pony that they wouldn’t listen. This is what they voted for. If they don’t like it, and I think a lot of them don’t, they need to walk away in November. And yea, I think the Democrats are going to pay.

          • Unfortunately I don’t believe there are sufficient numbers of women. 2008 proved that.

          • We need better outreach efforts. We need a strategy that will be meaningful to women from all socioeconomic groups, not just the rich intellectuals and the poor. The “soft middle” is where we need to focus.

          • There are many, many women in the camp that vehemently opposes abortion, and, for that matter, oppose women’s rights. They are the bible thumpers who believe they are, and should be, subservient to the male.

          • As a New Jersey resident and a Corzine voter, I think that was not a Democratic failure but an economic failure. People voted for the candidate that represented tax cuts and New Jersey has had a Democratic tax and spend history. I am disgusted by the education cuts that Christie has proposed, but unfortunately for liberal me, nobody else in New Jersey seems to want their taxes to go up to pay for our strong education system. And it is a great state in which to learn…or rather, it has been a great state in which to learn.

      • I hope you’re right – I am not sure how informed the young women are. Still, votes these days are less and less relevant so I am not too optimistic.
        The last time voters made their will clear was the Mass senate election. And by the looks of it, they are trampling over that anyway even as we speak.

  2. With all due respect (and I mean that) I’m confused on some of the things you’ve said here.

    If the Senate bill passes, it will perfectly acceptable to force women to identify themselves as considering abortion as a healthcare option when they sign up for insurance. It’s to shame them. No, no, don’t try to sugar coat this. That is the intention. To keep abortion as a shameful procedure.

    So, what you are saying is that you think abortion is shameful, and that’s why you don’t want to pay for it on your own? Who is to know, other than your insurance agent, if you are paying for the extra insurance rider to cover abortion? So, it’s shameful if you have to pay for it and not shameful if someone else has to pay for it for you?

    I can just hear the anti-choice crowd now. “Why should we pay for something that’s going to offend our consciences?” Jeez, I dunno. Why do I have to pay for faith based initiatives? How about we pass a separate bill that requires all of the religious people out there to write separate checks to cover church based charities that discriminate against the gay community or actively practice discrimination in their church hierarchy? That kind of crap really frosts my crockies and offends my conscience down to the quick but I still have to pay for it.

    Which faith based initiatives are you opposed to? Is it the help that they give to needy families? Promoting responsible fatherhood and healthy families? Reducing the unintended pregnancies and support maternal and child health?

    The Church charities are paid for by church members, at least in the Catholic Church and that’s all I can speak for. Again, which charity to you find abhorrent? I’m not sure of all faith based charities, but I know that Catholic Charities pays for health care for single pregnant girls and they also pay for the adoption placement and process for the infant if the mother decides to give the child up. Does our government do that? They also pay for senior citizen housing, transitional housing for single moms so they can go back to school and get a good job, the list goes on and on…and you aren’t paying for it in your taxes, this is completely covered by donations from the Church members and the Catholic Church dioceses.

    I’m all for women’s healthcare. I think women shouldn’t have to wait until it’s too late to have mammograms paid for by the insurance companies. I think all women and girls should have their gynecological exams free of charge. I think every young girl who requests the vaccination for cervical cancer preventative should have that paid for in full.

    If I recall, the Stupak amendment does allow coverage for women to have abortions if they are raped or a victim of incest. So, to say that they are keeping ALL women from having abortions is not true.

    I wish you could understand that those of us who are Catholic or just do not want to pay for abortions, aren’t doing it to prevent women’s health care…we just don’t want to pay for abortions because it goes directly against our beliefs. We aren’t saying that no woman can have an abortion, we just don’t want to pay for it, that’s all.

    I hope you don’t take this comment as an affront, I’m just trying to explain the other side. Some will listen, some will insult, and of course, as when the abortion issue comes up…the Catholic Church will be bashed for reasons that have nothing to do with their stance on abortion.

    • What is the difference?

      • Personally, I don’t believe any child should be aborted. I was just pointing out that often when the Stupak amendment is discussed, it is said that he is trying to keep “women’s healthcare” from all women.

        I also never said that I wanted all your legal rights taken from you. I have no doubt that abortion will never be repealed or made illegal. I’m not forcing my belief on anyone. If a woman becomes pregnant, I would rather see more emphasis on helping her by paying her medical bills during the pregnancy, birth, and post natal care in full. I think she should have the option to put the child up for adoption and her legal fees for that paid in full. I also think that those women who choose to have their babies should be given extra government help to subsidize daycare, pre-school, and the child should be covered in full for medical care. So…it’s not that I’m saying you have no rights, I’m just saying that the mother should be given more options and the ability to make a reasoned decision.

        • I think adoption is a more traumatic process for both the woman and the child than abortion frankly. I know a lot more folks that have trouble with being adopted or having farmed a child out than those that had an abortion. One of my friends who was adopted chose to have several abortions over adoption for that very reason. (For some reason, the pill just never worked on her.) I think that adoption is a coercive and emotionally manipulative process frankly in some cases and abortion can be the moral choice. I’ve seen it many times.

          Also, the charity that I refuse to give to is United Way. I have since the day Catholic charities got in and forced planned parenthood out.

          I refuse to have ANYTHING to do with United Way.

          • I think you can find more children who have been adopted and are thankful for the parents they have than those who found it to be “traumatic”. At least the child lives long enough to enjoy friends, family, school, a career, and the opportunities that anyone else has. Being killed in the womb is not the choice that I think most people would prefer to being alive.

            It’s true, giving up a child for adoption is difficult, but now we have laws that allow the birth mother to be a part of the child’s life if that is the way they want to set up an adoption. I know of a few women who have had abortion and wish they had given the child up for adoption or kept it. The decision was hasty on their part, they didn’t receive the proper counseling that Planned Parenthood was, by law, supposed to give them, and they realizes shortly afterward what a mistake they made.

            Of course, this doesn’t mean everyone has the same experience, I’m just saying that it’s not as cut and dry as some may think.

            Like I said…difficult subject to discuss. Thanks for replying without insult, I appreciate that.

          • Me, too. In fact, in the days when I did participate in United Way, Planned Parenthood was one of the organizations I selected for my contribution to be given to.

        • Do you eat meat? Wear leather? Then you *kill* living things.

          • I don’t eat meat and don’t wear leather…couldn’t afford it even if I wanted it.

            You are projecting what you think are acceptable or unacceptable reasons or what you believe is the basis for abortion

            And in turn you are projecting what you think is acceptable or unacceptable for your reasons in favor of abortion.

            Listen, I know that I can’t change the minds of those who disagree with me on this issue. I was only trying to help you understand how difficult this is for those of us who prefer not to pay for the abortions of others. That’s all. I was never rude to anyone here and I don’t think I was pushing my religion on anyone. I just have a different take on this, that’s all.

            I also made it very clear that I’m not for “regulating womens health”. I just happen to think that abortion isn’t health care. No offense was ever intended, on my part, at least.

          • it’s not even about having a baby or not, for me. It’s about NOT EVEN WANTING TO BE PREGNANT AT ALL.

        • Again, I understand your position. Please do not go into here.
          We simply do not agree with you. We see abortion as a medical decision, not a moral one that you and your Catholic friends are allowed to weigh in on. We don’t care what you would or wouldn’t prefer. It shouldn’t be up to you.
          As an expense, it is beyond the reach of some women. If you take away their ability to get it covered by insurance, you take away their access and far more will have no access if this bill passes. This is the intention or Stupak wouldn’t have introduced the measure. That gives Catholics more of a say in the lives of women who are not Catholics than is intended by the Constitution. You do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others. Period.
          Now, go away before we moderate you.

          • “We see abortion as a medical decision, not a moral one that you and your Catholic friends are allowed to weigh in on. We don’t care what you would or wouldn’t prefer. It shouldn’t be up to you.”
            I agree with your stance on abortion, but I do think this should be a discussion for all women. Stupak is one who should shut up about it. Women, whether they oppose (can’t understand this myself) or support abortion should discuss and legislate on this issue – in an ideal world. Feminists should not silence other women because they are anti-abortion. That’s not feminism and it certainly isn’t democracy.

        • and for the record … I find ‘aborting children’ an egregious use of emotionally manipulative language based on nothing scientific and just the word of some very delusional religious people. You have your belief system and I have mine. Problem is I’m forced to live by yours.

        • when women decide to give a child up for adoption, she has no legal fees. Her heath care is usually covered by the adoptive parents or some charity if she has no insurance.
          Pregnancy is a health risk and it changes your body and you life forever. Abortion is a much better option for many women. Preaching will get you no where. This is a choice women have made since the beginning of time and it is disrespectful to think that they would make some other choice if you could just educate them to see the morality of the issue the way you do.
          If the RCC wasn’t so backwards on the rights of women and ordained women, this issue would have gone away a long time ago.

        • Personally I believe you are entitled to your belief system. What I find repulsive is that the same sort of consideration isn’t given to those that don’t share your belief system. Pro choice women and men aren’t running around telling young women choosing to have children that they are wrong for the choice or that they are making poor moral choices they have made. So what exactly is it that makes anti choice that they have the right to excoriate people if they choose the right to exercise reproductive choice?

          Pregnancy is rarely cut and dried and the last person I want deciding whether or not it should continue is some third party that isn’t going to have to live with the consequences of the decision made.

          • Again, Bingo!
            I swear on all that is holy (to me) that I will never try to exercise control over nunly’s uterus and force her to have an abortion.
            What I expect from my government is protection from anyone who tries to exercise control over my uterus. It’s only fair that nunly and I receive equal protection.

    • I dont agree with ED meds… I mean why should I pay for some guy to be able to get it up

      • I agree with you there!

      • Going further, I disagreed with Iraq. I wanna know where my waiver is so I no longer have to support that boondoggle. Or I don’t agree with torture or the PatriotAct. I want my opt out for those things too. There are lots of things I find morally repulsive that I am forced to fund. Why is it that THIS particular procedure gets special treatment?

    • I have no problem with abortion. It is a medical procedure that carries no shame for me or my children. But I have to recognize that I and my family are exceptional. In general, we don’t buy into consensus reality. We do what is right, not what is written and frankly, we don’t care what other people think. My emphasis with my children is and always has been that responsibility first is moral and ethical but that there is no shame in abortion. That is not what many people think.

      As for understanding your point of view on abortion, I do understand it and I just don’t care what you think. I don’t think the Catholic Church has any right to interfere in the decisions of women facing a medical procedure. I don’t care that you don’t like it and I don’t feel that I need to treat your religion as being more important than my unalienable rights as a person to decide what my religious views will be.

      I don’t like paying for faith based initiatives because I don’t want my tax dollars, in this case, an involuntary tithe, to go into the hands of people who will promote their religious belief as a condition of needy individuals receiving aid from them. I don’t approve of giving public money to religious institutions that discriminate against gay people or people who are pro-choice or believe in equality of the sexes or who have a church hierarchy that specifically excludes women from their highest ranks. This is as important to me as abortion is to you. Why should your conscience be treated with more respect than mine?

      No, seriously, don’t go there. I have my conscience and your faith based initiatives are violating it. If you want to expound on your pro-life position, please visit another blog. We here have heard it and we don’t want to hear any more of it.

      • It’s a shame that you are taking such a tone as “I don’t care what you think” and “visit another blog” and “we don’t want to hear any more of it.”. I didn’t realize this blog was one that discouraged different points of view. I tried to be as respectful as I could because I realize what a difficult issue this is to discuss.

        I guess this is a lot like the Obot blogs who prefer to spew their hate towards those who don’t follow “The One”. I thought you guys were better than that. My mistake.

        • Thank you for your concern.


        • I tried to be as respectful as I could because I realize what a difficult issue this is to discuss
          The issue is not difficult to discuss at all. Just like the issue of enslaving women in other ways is not that difficult to discuss. It’s just not very interesting when we don’t agree with the idea of enslaving women.

        • I think you misunderstood. We don’t allow others a platform to promote their political or religious propaganda. We have had anti-choice posters. We even had on front page for awhile during the primaries. But he seemed ecumenical. Nevertheless, we had to ask him to leave because we were really tired of being preached to about abortion.
          Your point of view has been presented by many, here and elsewhere. We don’t want to hear about it anymore. No one here is going to be persuaded. You just get on our nerves.
          We’re not telling you to shut up. We’re saying that if you’re looking for converts to your side, you’re wasting your time here. Go elsewhere unless you want us to convert you to OUR side.

        • Nunly dear,

          first of all you are a guy right? In that case MYOB. You don’t have a uterus, get one and you can do anything you want with it.
          Next, I find the war in Iraq morally objectionable as I do the death penalty. Why do my taxes go to pay for those things? Because I am a citizen of the US and that is part of being a citizen.
          As far as abortion and you money, concerning this bill….. the RCC has you so brain washed, you can’t even be logical. You are not paying for anyone’s abortion. You are paying for your own health insurance and women are paying for theirs. What her insurance covers has nothing to do with you.

          Seriously, the RCC is worse, much worse than the fundy Protestants when it comes to imposing their religion on the rest of us.

          ps.. faith based charities ARE being funded by tax dollars. That is the whole objection. No one cares what churches do with their own donations, but tax money is going to them and it is subverting the constitution.

        • The existence of a universal health insurance bill that refuses to fund abortion is the discussion here, and it is given the attention it needs. Taking it on a side-trip through Morality Avenue is nothing more than an unwelcome distraction.

          You are here to try to sway people’s attitudes about abortion. We made our decisions on it, and your efforts are insulting. This is not a group of people looking for guidance and direction on matters from your religious leaders, we are more than capable of understanding the decisions we have made.

          • How many women have to start dying from back alley abortions because NOW they can’t afford to have it done in a proper sterile environment by a professional, before people start realizing how serious this is??? Nunly et alia act like this is some kind of “angels on the head of a pin” philosophical debate.

            It’s real, and it affects real people. Wise up, Janet Weiss!

    • I’m already paying for your tax-exempt church. Tax the churches!

  3. Well, I think this bill gets pretty close to trying to create the private market you envision. I just don’t think it will work.

    You really can’t make private insurance affordable, without subsidizing it for a majority of Americans, and even then as health care costs rise, and thanks to advances in technology, they will, so too will insurance prices, and they will continue to price people out of the market. I really think a responsible government pays for the health care of its people, as they do their military, police, fire men, infrastructure, etc..

    For me, the abortion concerns are secondary to my primary problems with the bill.

    • The whole debate has left out entire segments of people who would like to experiment with a single payer system or a publicly funded one. I respect people who have this view and I am distressed that they were shut out. They should have been able to make their case.
      But in the end, there are many different versions of health care we could have ended up with that would have created an affordable, portable, comprehensve plan that covered everyone. T. R. Reid did a Frontline story that explored successful health care policies from around the world that had certain features in common whether they were socialized medicine or free market. What we needed was a Congress that researched best practices and implemented them. We didn’t end up with that either.
      The idiots in charge in Congress knew what it wanted before they started debate. Neither you nor I got the health care plan the country really desperately needs.

      • Yeah, I’ve read about TR Reid. I don’t agree that any of those systems are “free market”. We don’t have the political capacity in this country to effectively regulate the private insurance market, and make no mistake in countries that have “free market” systems according to Reid, they are extremely regulated to the point of public utilities. And, nearly every other industrialized country covers basic health care for the vast majority of their people though a single federal payer, or highly regulated nonprofit entities. And we have an incredible single payer system to start with, it’s Medicare. I think this bill will pass, and just like No Child Left Behind, it will fail.

        • NCLB did fail, but Obama made sure to force an enhance verion on us anyway. As for HCR, the even fatter insurers and pharma will make sure the only changes will benefit them: higher mandates, higher fines for non-payment etc.

        • I believe that Switzerland has as close to a free market as you’re going to get. That should have been one of the models for us.
          BTW, this is something that really irritates me about lefties: they get the idea into their heads that there is only one solution that will work. Period. They will ignore all evidence about long term repercussions or evidence to the contrary.
          I think responsible liberals do not rule out any proposal that can be customized to meet their principles and values. I believe in covering everyone, affordably, with subsidies for those who can’t afford care, no discrimination on the basis of sex, with costs and services regulated to insure fairness and comprehensive coverage for all. There are a wide variety of parameters we could have tweaked to get what we wanted. It didn’t need to be single payer. Regulation is not a bad word.

          • Switzerland works in terms of providing minimum coverage to every one, but it’s not very cost effective if you look a the studies.

          • I’ve always believed that Germany’s model would have been the most effective and easiest to implement within our current infrastructure.

          • I have to admit I have the same issue with some on the left. I had a long argument with someone about hybrid cars. He kept pushing hybrid only solutions and I would argue what if a non hybrid got 300mpg. That didn’t matter. I argued about the use of heavy metals as much worse than CO2, that didn’t matter. There was one and only one solution. Facts couldn’t get in the way of that. Same with the no nukes crowd. No matter what I say about fusion or other more near term improvements, nope, it’s all evil. So we have coal instead. Grumble. But that’s all for another day…

          • And we are not now, nor will we ever be, Switzerland. We simply do not have the regulatory framework and it would be subverted in minutes if we did.

          • Ralph, maybe we don’t have a regulatory framework but if I were a Democrat in Congress trying to leave my mark on the country, it’s the first thing I would have pushed for once I was elected. Lack of regulation is the cause of the housing crisis, financial meltdown, health insurance problem, telco craziness, you name it.
            The country is working in Wild West mode. It’s everyone for himself and fuck anyone who gets in your way. There’s no sense of fairness or equanimity. No one is playing by any rules. That is a very dangerous position for our country to be in especially when viewed from an international perspective. If you can’t trust the people you leave your money with, how can you allow them to have it in the first place? Why would you expect to be treated fairly when you trade? If we don’t treat our own working class (and that would be the vast majority of us) fairly, why should any other country? We are supposed to be setting an example for the rest of the world because we are a leading financial, economic and military superpower. And yet we allow for unchecked, excessive greed, punitive policies towards the poor and working class (that would be us) and reckless behavior abroad.
            We NEED regulation. There has to be rules in place. We need to establish trust and rein in corruption or we are finished as the number one nation in the world.

          • Medicare for all would be the most cost effective way to get Health care reform. Right now an incredible amount of money goes to insurance companies for salaries and other over- head. If we spent 75 percent of what we spend now, everyone paying taxes (including corporations) rather than premiums, will save money and get better health care coverage.
            Leaving all these for profit businesses in the mix insures that it will cost more not less.

          • Swiss system moved to more market-based in 2006, since then their prices have been going up. Of course the Swiss buy their insurance bundled with like their house and car insurance. Completely different dynamics. Really, apples and oranges to anything in the US, and not “free market”. We are not the Swiss at any rate. Higher median income, higher mean income, homogeneous pop.

      • Not only were SP advocates left out of the debate, but adding insult to injury, Obama cynically spewed every chance he had: “All options were on the table, everyone was heard”
        The only recognition came in his interview with Faux when he said “I rejected a bunch of proposal from the left” as part of his GOP bona fides

  4. if the bill that gets voted on today isn’t the right one, it will not be changed for a very long time – if ever
    I agree. If this pile of crap passes, it will be what we’re stuck with for generations. It may very well unwind if the mandate part is neutralized. But of course the joke there is though Repubs are making noise that they want to neutralize it, they of course have the very same bosses as the new Dems, the insurance industry, and that effort may not continue past November. But who knows.

    We’re so screwed.

  5. I’m firmly in the Kill the Bill camp, and the last thing I want is “the market” to spend two more seconds with a profitable choke-hold on medical access it’s incented not to deliver.

    We need Single-Payer Medicare for All or, even better, socialized medicine. No mandate to buy for-profit insurance. No meaningless “public option” razzmatazz.

    And, of course, an end to the government’s impingement on reproductive rights.

    • Well said. In single payer, you actually pay for care rather than a coupon good for a fraction of the costs from the middle man. A mandate for that would be justifiable.
      PO was just another shiny light to divert attention from the insurance bailout.

      • On the plus side, when all the insurance companies merge into one, we’ll have single payer. They just won’t pay for anything.

        • Got the sarcasm, but single payer meant “pay for care, not for the business placing bets on your health” Just needed to clarify as some – even in my home didn’t grasp the difference between “healthcare” and “health insurance”

  6. I think there are going to be a lot more people upset about the mandate to buy private insurance than the reproductive health stuff, and personally, I think the mandate to buy a private sector health insurance product is more troubling.

    • Especially since the bill allows insurance companies to continue rate discrimination against women. Any woman who is in a group policy with more than 100 people can expect to pay higher premiums than her male cohorts. This was one of the points that NOW made in its letter urging members to kill the bill, along with discriminatory rates for middle-aged and older women (and men). Sorry, RD, the insurance companies are the problem, not any part of the solution.

      • I don’t agree. Accountability is the problem. When there is insufficient regulation or poorly planned policy that allows insurance companies to discriminate without penalty, that’s the problem.
        Single payer is a shortcut but may come with an unexpected cost to the consumer.
        I’m not disagreeing that it should have been explored thoroughly. You could definitely make a case for it. Even my Fox News worshipping mother loves her Tricare. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves into believing that single payer is a panacea or our only option.

        • The drawback of single payer is that it doesn’t start out having price controls. The goal is to offer care to everyone. Some countries have run into trouble because costs exceed budget.

          • That’s not a fault of single-payer. It’s a fault of those who design what the system will pay for. Increasingly, expensive imaging tests ($2000 per scan) are being ordered for the most routine problems. My doctor, who knows that I don’t have insurance, suggested an MRI for a sinus infection, for heaven’s sake. When I told her how much they cost, she actually seemed surprised. She’s just trying, like so many doctors, to see more and more patients without having to do the diagnostic work that doctors used to do on their own by spending time talking with the patient. I’m not saying imaging isn’t an important advance–just that it’s grossly overused by the medical profession.

          • Any truly viable system in the world has price controls. Trying to impose market-based price controls is both ineffective and immoral imo. That’s what we have now (outside of government administered programs), and that’s what we’ll still have if this bill passes.

        • If you want to control costs, insurance companies are part of the problem. Why should health care be a for-profit enterprise? It’s entirely possible to provide quality care–plus a good living for those involved in providing that care–without adding the profit motive. My first insurance policy was from Blue Cross Blue Shield–before they were a for-profit enterprise–and I can tell you that my operation, hospital stay, and all associated costs amounted to $400 out of pocket to me. Those were the days.

          There is simply no will among our legislators to regulate private industry in this country. That’s why we have the monopolies and oligopolies that we have now–with no element of control. Using insurance companies as middle men is the same as outsourcing to Blackwater for security issues that should be handled by our government, IMO. Privatization is not the answer. It adds the costs and profits of middle-men that simply make everything more expensive.

          • third party payers are a complete abomination in economic theory. If you have to have them, better to do something like single payer and at least take advantages of economies of scale and the law of large numbers resident in huge risk pools. If they have to be there–which I actually think it may only be necessary for catastrophic coverage instead of day-to-day stuff–then at least make it cost efficient and standardize the paper work.

          • I’m not sticking up for insurance companies. I hate middle men of all persuasions. I think they deserve the Sans Coulotte treatment. But here’s my problem: shouldn’t the debate about our options have taken place in Congress and not in the blogs? I mean, the lefty blogosphere has been debating this stuff for a year or more but none of this stuff was ever discussed in Congress or in the Obama administration. The inevitable result was dictated and decided on without our input months and months ago.
            Where was the research, the modeling, the debate? It was completely absent. We might have ended up with single payer. We might have ended up with regulate insurance companies. We wouldn’t have had THIS bill because it is essentially everything that Republicans want. I am a “fix it now” person. I don’t want to kill the bill. I just want them to do it right the first time. If the president wants to preserve his dignity, he needs to make Congress table the bill and fix it first.

          • Really, catostrophic insurance is the only insurance that makes sense. The (few) plans that cover most regular expenses are like prepaid health care. The premium goes back out to medical bils with the exception of the insurance company’s cut.

            I think we’d be better off if the government paid for all the emergency rooms. They have some of the highest bills out of pocket and they get closed left and right by private hospitals because they’re not “profitable.”

        • Single payer comes with a higher cost to (consumers) citizens? I simply can’t imagine where you pulled that out of. Single payer simply means one payer. And, if you think it isn’t a solution ask old people if they would like to switch back to the private market. Tricare by the way is single payer. The government foots the bill, insurers are contracted only to administer the paperwork. It actually is the most viable solution. Maybe you are personally afraid you’d lose out if the American people had an equal health care delivery system, but the surest way to provide equitable health care for all Americans where we all share the cost is by expanding our single payer system. I think this bill will fail and that’s where we will end up.

        • Single payer isn’t a panacea for health care. What it does is prevent financial ruination. Health care is an entirely different matter.

    • It doesn’t go into effect until after 2012.

      • well, unless the economy looks better for more than just the health insurance industry and Wall Street, they can be as historic as they want to be. People are just going to get madder and madder at them for not paying attention to job creation, etc. The bills focused on the economy have been completely wimpy and I’m still not convinced the financial markets won’t crash again.

        • I think there will be some rigged things by their friends to make it look like we’re recovering, just when they need it most. Well, unless the “bosses” have decided they want their other party to drive next.

          • Hard to rig creating 11 million jobs though. It may have went a bit too far for the usual PR to work this time?

        • I’m convinced the markets will crash again. Soon.

          This bill adds a financial burden to people exactly at the worse time.

          None of this bodes well. Informed women are, as RD said, spitting nails. Several states are planning to sue the federal government about the bill. The states rights issues are rising fast. The democrats are toast in the next elections.

          Hard for me to believe that this is all coincidental and I am not at all a tin-foil type.

  7. Yeah, isn’t that a bit much enthusiasm for a fixer upper?
    In Bobotland this is a popular headline
    Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Mar-20-10 12:06 PM
    Original message
    If Private Health insurance is so good – YOU WOULDN’T NEED A MANDATE TO FORCE US TO BUY THE CRAP! ”
    Of course, we know private insurance is not good – cuz Obama himself told us so last week.
    And more to the topic – I am curious about that anti-choice Executive Order Stupak and friends want from Obama – will they get it? After all, these people are wooed, not clobbered like Kuchinich & al

  8. EJ Dionne:

    Why Democrats Are Fighting for a Republican Health Plan

    Here is the ultimate paradox of the Great Health Care Showdown: Congress will divide along partisan lines to pass a Republican version of health care reform, and Republicans will vote against it.

    • Well DUH.

    • The world has been upside down since the primaries. Crazy isn’t it. Not a coincidence that the failbots that make the most noise sound and act like Republicans.

    • Here’s another B0bot take

      The bill is deeply flawed; and those arguing that it can be reformed after it passes are letting hope triumph over evidence, but passing the bill is still necessary. If the bill fails, the Obama presidency will be that much closer to being unsalvageable. Unfortunately, passage of the bill will not be a major victory for the Obama presidency, but it will allow Obama to live to fight another day. That is reason enough, and perhaps the only real reason, why passage of this bill is important.


      • Soooo, the bill is crap and there’s virtually no possibility that it’s going to get any better but we have to pass it NOW anyway because…..????

        • Hurry!!!

        • Because he has to win the competition with Clinton

          These people are well positioned to understand that failing to pass the bill again will confirm the views of Obama’s detractors who see Obama’s presidency as becoming akin to Jimmy Carter’s without the cardigans or Bill Clinton’s without the peace and prosperity, and would almost certainly lead to greater Republican victories in November.

          • Well, we can’t have that. I mean, we can’t expect Obama to just do the right thing and set a new standard for his own behavior without reference to his predecessors, right? Because that would be , er, like what he ran on.
            Oh, forget it.

          • I wish it looked like Clinton without the peace and prosperity. Unfortunately Obama’s presidency looks more like Bush III or Reagan II.

        • Because its all about the O’drama of Obama.

      • OOOOHHHH!! I get it now. It’s all about OBAMA! Just like it’s been about Obama since he announced that he was running for president. Jeez, this presidenting gig would be so much easier without all those frickin’ Democrats in Exile and other Americans who vote.

        • Don’t worry, they’re looking into that problem next. Hmm, somehow that joke doesn’t seem so far fetched.

        • It has always been about getting a win for Obama. I belong to the California Nurses Association, who has been a promotor for a SP system for YEARS. The president of CNA could not even get a place at the table. In a brief meeting with Baucus, she was told that SP was off the table, because it wouldn’t fly, and this was all about getting a win for Obama. She wrote an article about this back in June 2009. She was complimentary of Obama (of course), but said that he lacked to political courage to fight for a single payer system. CNA is not promoting the passage of this bill. The main national organization (ANA), but CNA is not, and will not promote this bill, because it will not solve the health care crisis. It is a huge giveaway to the insurance companies.

          • CNA knows that things will not change and that even nurses can and will continue to be left out in the cold. HR 676 is the model of Civil Rights not this bill.

        • there you go!

        • Obama:”Help Me Finish The Fight” On Health Care Reform (text)

      • OMG.

        Have they no scruples whatsoever? No care for the state of the nation??

        • Apparently not. They’re pretty up front about it.

        • ummm, nope.

        • No scruples, and no judgment….that great big word that fueled his campaign.

          Congress has also proven a completely broken link between legislation and reality.

          They say the insurance companies will be forced to spend .85 out of every dollar for medical services.

          1. Many private insurance companies for healthcare are publicly traded. They have an obligation to their shareholders. Shareholders will run, taking big bucks with them, if they aren’t going to get a big ROI.

          2. To even double the number of members any insurance company has to process and manage will require increasing the workforce considerably. That brings with it having to buy space, technology, training, etc. for all those new employees. Remember, they only get .15 on the dollar for this.

          The insurance companies have no cap on what they can charge for premiums. I expect double digit increases will continue until something starts collapsing. At that point, Obama’s brilliance will be his, “and we thought Carter was bad” legacy.

      • “passage of the bill will not be a major victory for the Obama presidency, but it will allow Obama to live to fight another day”—fight to cut Social Security and Medicare.

    • Conservative activists on facebook and twitter have been bashing this bill with great frequency and consistency for the past year. They’ve gone eerily silent in the past week. Republicans want this bill. After it passes for sure, they’ll begin raising hell again.

    • It’s the start of the attacks to blame the Republicans for the Democrats HCR. Whenever anything comes up about it being a POS, they’ll just say the Republicans made us do it.

      Blame deflection which I really hope doesn’t work this time. The Democrats own this POS and should pay the price for it.

  9. Today, Doctor Daughter turns 27 years old. I was preggers with her during a time I was actively trying to prevent the erosion of women’s rights. I’m going to have to get the tape of my activities that year digitized because you’d see a very pregnant me with Betty Friedan and Kate Millet and a barely pregnant me with Maya Angelou as we all were trying to make sense of what it meant to lose the ERA.

    It’s ironic, that today is her birthday and that she is a full service ob/gyn who already has horrific stories to tell about the denial of even simple things like placement of IUDs by nurses who have chosen to work with ob/gyns to make a point. Again, as a fourth year med student, she had to clean out the septic remnants of a botched abortion in a public hospital on her own because the resident there refused to do it and walked out.

    This is a sad day for women. If a democratic President will sign an executive order that restricts a woman’s right to choose and that supports the Hyde amendment, then indeed, I encourage every woman to WALK.

    I for one, consider myself a member of the National Women’s Party.

    • Happy B’day to your daughter. And it is indeed a sad time for woman’s rights. It’s extra sad when it’s the party that was supposed to be on the side of women that inflicts the killing blow.

    • Happy birthday to your daughter, a woman of grace and courage.

  10. Yes, the individual mandate without cost controls is my thorn. It will be a far greater problem for average Americans than the abortion issue.

  11. I’m still updating Live Blog 3 with articles and whip counts, btw, if you’re interested.

  12. Good thing HCR doesn’t take effect right away. It’s going to be tied up in the courts for years.

    Is health-care reform constitutional?

    With the House set to vote on health-care legislation, the congressional debate on the issue seems to be nearing its conclusion. But if the bill does become law, the battle over federal control of health care will inevitably shift to the courts. Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, has said he will file a legal challenge to the bill, arguing in a column this month that reform legislation “violate[s] the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.” On Friday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced that they will file a federal lawsuit if health-care reform legislation passes.

    Will these cases get anywhere? Here is a guide to the possible legal challenges to a comprehensive health-care bill.

    Never let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

  13. Using the Swiss model as the example of a successful market based healthcare system is unfortunately wildly misleading. Switzerland, with a relatively small, homogenious, affluent population has a highly regulated system as noted by a previous commenter.

    As noted by healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt in a review in JAMA:
    “To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).

    • I agree that the governmental and social structures, not to mention infrastructures of the Swiss HC system would be difficult to duplicate in the US. As I noted above, the German system would be more compatible.

      • The German system is also heavily regulated. The difference is that they are one of the few countries that allows their top tier earners to opt out. Yep, medical procedures are cost controlled, as are hospitals, and insurers have to cover everyone. Competition is the rule.

        • I believe Germany’s costs are about 1/2 of ours per capita.

        • They do allow them to opt out. However, most don’t which should tell you something.

          “Yep, medical procedures are cost controlled, as are hospitals, and insurers have to cover everyone. Competition is the rule.”

          Um, one of these things is not like the other. The regulations leave insurers largely uncompetitive. The Germans mostly are lump into the different administrative insurers by UNION.

    • To which I ask, what’s wrong with regulation?

      • However, consideration for existing social structures and economic infrastructures has to be part of the equation or it will take decades, or worse yet fail and never come to fruition.

        • If we’re keeping the insurance companies, then heavy regulation would have to happen. So regulate the hell out of them. Those regulations would of course get watered down in time from actions of New Dems and Repubs most likely. But at least they would have to make the effort and show their hand.

          • With a Medicaid like program I fear that it will be the states who do the regulating which is problematic. I know that in California that Blue Cross has gotten away with things because of the expense that would be incurred to get them to comply. It’s just easier and lest costly to not have to pay for them dragging things out.

          • We don’t have the political capacity for that.

      • Regulation is great and necessarily, but we’d still have the huge private health insurance industry as the (mostly) unnecessary middleman.

        • The health of our citizens should not be a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market.

          • Agree, but that administrative entity even without profits still accounts for 20% of our total healthcare costs…costs which squeeze coverage and care. Those 3-4 million jobs are seriously cutting into the actual provision of care. Govt should be developing plans for a phased migration of those jobs, but nobody is doing that because this admin has no clue about job development…except keep big private sector corporations happy.

          • If they were paid by the government to administer, the costs would be set by us.

          • Agree again. To clarify, I meant by 20% the health insurance industry share of the total 2.5 trillion we spend annually on healthcare, and the approx 3-4 million jobs they represent.

  14. Sorry I ment to include Reinhard’s concluding quote;
    Regulations require “a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations.”[2]

    • For some reason, there has been an influx of people lately who are saying, “REGULATION!!! Oooo, WE could NEVER do THAT”
      Bullshit. If that’s what it takes to get everyone covered affordably, Congress should have girded its loins and gotten it done.
      I don’t buy the consensus reality that we can’t do it because it required regulation and regulation is impossible. We don’t elect Congress to act like craven student council types. Or at least we didn’t in 2008. Quite a few of them will not get a second chance if they screw this up.

      • Being against regulating corporations is a basic conservative principle. I’m wary of anyone taking that stand that’s also acting like they’re on our side. Reminds me of the primaries somehow.

        • I *know* it is a conservative thing. That’s why I am so astonished at the number of Confluence readers who have bought into that haka.
          If you are for the common good and playing fairly and establishing trust and rewarding people who play by the rules so everyone has a chance to prosper, then you can’t rule out regulation.
          Without it, you might as well be playing Monopoly without any rules and with no one watching the banker. Is that what we really want? Recent history shows that it is a very, VERY bad idea.

      • Please don’t misunderstand. When I say we don’t have the regulatory framework, it’s not because I don’t think it’s needed it’s because our whole history as a country says it won’t work well here.

        The US has a long history of passing regulations, see Sherman Antitrust, and then letting them die due to non-enforcement. I think the same would happen with health insurance company regulations over time. It’s just what we do and who we are as a people historically.

        • We seem to regulate Medicare ok.

        • Ralph, we had plenty of regulation in varying aspects of government following the Great Depression. It *can* be done. There just has to be a political will to do it. And right now, all the politicians are listening to is fucking Fox News and other self-interested media types and their cronies who want them to believe that the country is full of idiots drunk on tea.
          That would be a mistake.
          Gore didn’t lose, Kerry only lost by a smidgeon and Hillary won the Democratic primaries (we can count!). There are plenty of people in the country who aren’t eating the propaganda that they get barraged on a daily basis. If I were a Democrat interested in retaining power, I’d try to think outside of the consensus reality box. Conventional wisdom for a Democrat is a trap.

          • Naomi??? where are ya now?

          • Most of those regulations from the Depression still exist but are no longer being enforced. It hasn’t mattered much who is in power since the ’70s from that standpoint either.

            Fucking Fox News wasn’t around when regulations began to be ignored. Blaming them or other self interested media types for it is a mistake. They are there because of it, it didn’t occur because of them.

            Bill Clinton made the statement that being President was like being supervisor at a cemetery. There are a lot of people under you but when you tell them something, no one is listening.

            It’s not just the elected politicians who are problems, it’s also a lot of the people who work in the agencies appointed by people to be lax guardians. They are good at it and thoroughly captured by the industries they should be regulating. All that just adds unnecessary problems to doing HCR in the US through private companies. Medicare for All would be much easier.

          • Do you mean this video??? Maybe Dakinikat can incorporate it into her post?

      • We are talking about the sort of regulations that render the insurers public utilities. It’s not gonna happen.

  15. I still wish they would put in extra language about “male reproductive health”. No Viagra, no penile implants etc.

    I am so tired of my uterus being a political football.
    However I do believe that health care reform will not be re-visited if this bill is defeated. Democrats don’t have a spine and won’t go there again for another generation. We are screwed either way. Maybe I am just a pessimists or a political realist of the power games.

    Until the politicos realize that if we want a type of private health care insurance, then it needs to be regulated like utilities. So I agree with the German or Swiss model as an alternative.

    (This is totally off topic but a question to the business economic people here. I read where 1.4 trillion in commercial mortgages are going to be due in the next two years. The commercial real estate market has lost value and with the current credit freeze many of these properties will not qualify for re-financing. Sounds like the similar scenario 2 years ago with the residential market implosion. This will affect the not too big to fail banks. I am concerned that the prevailing thinking is that this will OK However, with 720 banks in some type of financial distress, the cumulative effect of multiple bank failures will be the same. Maybe some future article here?)

  16. ok, fundies, here is a deal for you.
    We will write law and shuffle your money around to insure that not one cent of your money goes to abortion, on THE very same day that you give up your complete total tax exempt status, open your books fill out a return on all the money that comes in and goes out of your church. You will receive tax exemptions on all the money that is spent on actual charity work that does NOT discriminate against the LGBT community.

    All other income brought into your church will be taxed as the business that it is….. Deal??

  17. Yet, there is someone left out of this equation. Who? who? I just can put my finger on it.

  18. I’m pesonally disappointed. Instead of expanding Medicare, they chose to expand Medicaid, which I believe is a weaker program.

    The whole debate was argued from the middle(from the system itself to abortio) which means we ended up center right……again.

    • Agreed, but the single most effective part of the reform is the Medicaid expansion.

    • “Instead of expanding Medicare, they chose to expand Medicaid,”……?????

  19. <<<>>
    Bart Stupak is a yes…. it’s over folks

  20. Bart Stupak just told CNN that he is still a No.

  21. Well, here we go again..What will the government do next. Healthcare is just one thing they can never get right!

    • They haven’t even tried. Don’t blame government. Other countries manage to do it.

  22. Hey such an interesting and healthy post to look into. Great posting and have a great readership…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: