Yeah, what's up with FOUR PERCENT? It's as if they need SOME amount not covered so that certain people (probably the poor but I think it may be "middle class") can shift in and out of that 4% and no one will really be secure in their health care. Typical bullshit from the pols: divide and conquer (96% vs. 4%) always must be viable to play off one against the other for election time.
Posted by Sharon at November 8, 2009 05:59 AMIt isn't close to perfect, but once again Pelosi delivers what she promises.
Posted by allansfca at November 8, 2009 08:07 AMThe House performs a Nidal Hasan on the American people and the zealots cry for more depredation.
Posted by onar at November 8, 2009 10:13 AModor: was that you with the sign with the concentration camp bodies on it?
Posted by TIKI AL at November 8, 2009 10:22 AMHealth insurance reform opponents are such a caricature the Onion can't even keep up. The House bill (much less the Senate bill) is utterly mild - hardly a threat to western civilization.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at November 8, 2009 10:42 AMThe House performs a Nidal Hasan on the American people and the zealots cry for more depredation.
Shorter, you fucking idiot. "Profits not people!"
Posted by phidipides at November 8, 2009 12:31 PMLemme get this straight, legislators legislating is the same thing as a guy going wacko with guns and killing a bunch of soldiers? Really? Losing a vote is like death to you guys? What drama queens.
The Beckian dead enders are such a caricature the Onion can't even keep up.
Fixxded! because we'll be seeing this idiocy every time the dems try to do anything to fix the GOP failures that led to this mess. These guys have willfully let go of the last shreds of sanity (and dignity) they may have had prior to losing the election last year. And the RNC has succumbed to their shrieking and are letting them run their party into the ground. Their free floating ragegasm is pretty funny, if you don't think about the innocent people that might get hurt when their incitement finds a willing stormtrooper.
Posted by Twinky P* at November 8, 2009 02:51 PMNot one of anar's best cretinisms, but we should cut him some slack---years of wearing Depends undergarments 24/7 will destroy anyone's mind.
Posted by euzoius at November 8, 2009 03:04 PMallansfca writes:
"once again Pelosi delivers what she promises"
Pelosi promised the Stupak amendment? I must have missed the memo.
Posted by lambert strether at November 9, 2009 07:53 AMBecause having no healthcare insurance is better than having to pay for an abortion if you want one!
Douche.
Posted by snark at November 9, 2009 08:07 AM
Lamby-pamby welcomes your hatred, snark. Which is prolly why he tries so hard to piss people off. Prolly the only thing he's ever succeeded at, actually. Oh, except for making Digby sorry she gave a heads up to the Corrente-whiner fundraiser. Hilarious how many people in her comments said "fuck that noise" even before the whiners came in and insulted the rest of the commenters in the thread and even Digby expressed her regret. I'm thinking that fundraiser was a net loss! But hey, maybe Palin will wink at him, since he's supporting her vagina in the next election!
And yes, Stupak announced he'd do this last July - he is a C-Street (Manson) Family guy, so what did anyone expect?
I saw a statistic over the weekend that 87% of those who get abortions pay for them themselves anyhow. The sucky thing is access, and you have to go after the freaky ass godbots for that one. Personally, I think we should go after the coverage of dick hardening drugs. Why does an 80 year old geezer need help fucking? Your glory days are over, dipshit. Give it up.
Posted by Twinky P* at November 9, 2009 09:15 AM"Your glory days are over, dipshit. Give it up."
Thanks for my first good laff of the day, TP! ;-)
Posted by bartcopfan at November 9, 2009 10:51 AMPoor twinky p. Democrats shove women, and especially poor women, under the bus, and all it can do is try to change the discussion to a blogger everybody hates and nobody reads. I'd call it pathetic if its values weren't so screwed up. Good luck in 2010.
Posted by lambert strether at November 9, 2009 12:17 PMDemocrats shove women, and especially poor women, under the bus...
Again, because there's no point in getting insurance coverage for anything else that might be wrong with them, or for any preventive medical services, if they can't have insurance covered abortions on demand. I mean really, what's the point?
Posted by snark at November 9, 2009 12:38 PMHeehee - Lamby's so easy. What a putz.
Posted by Twinky P* at November 9, 2009 02:08 PMMore vague talking points from snark with bonus points the straw man. All sides agree no cost controls, and then no firm enrollee numbers whatever, health insurance exchanges that can't be proven to work, and all but two of the "pledging" progressives on what was in any case a pathetically weak "public option" reneging. Plus single payer experiments outlawed in the states, and reinforcing health care for profit forever. And then there's bailing out health insurance companies with the mandate. But wait! There's more! Obama scr*wing his base. Of course, the Senate will make things better. Yeah, I'd say that's worth forcing a few more poor women to turn to the coat-hangar. Why doesn't everyone?
Posted by lambert strether at November 9, 2009 02:09 PMI'm convinced. I'm voting for Palin's vagina today!
Posted by Twinky P* at November 9, 2009 02:18 PMMore vague talking points from snark with bonus points the straw man.
Yawn.
All sides agree no cost controls, and then no firm enrollee numbers whatever, health insurance exchanges that can't be proven to work, and all but two of the "pledging" progressives on what was in any case a pathetically weak "public option" reneging. Plus single payer experiments outlawed in the states, and reinforcing health care for profit forever. And then there's bailing out health insurance companies with the mandate.
Jeez! All that from the Stupak amendment? I don't think anyone is under the delusion that this is the ideal piece of legislation. But obviously, you would prefer the status quo. And quite frankly, I don't see how the status quo helps anyone currently without health insurance to get it or how the status quo keeps any fewer poor women from having to resort to the coat-hanger solution to an unwanted pregnancy. So if we are going to make any steps toward fixing healthcare insurance in this country it's this or nothing. Because if it doesn't get a foot in the door this year it isn't going to happen any time soon. The details can always be improved once we see what works and what does not. Or we can do nothing.
Yeah, I'd say that's worth forcing a few more poor women to turn to the coat-hangar. Why doesn't everyone?
How is this going to make "a few more poor women" turn to the coat-hanger? Please explain that. How is a poor uninsured woman going to be any different under the proposed plan than now? How is a poor insured woman going to be any different under the proposed plan than she is now? How many insurance policies currently pay for elective abortion?
Posted by snark at November 9, 2009 02:28 PMAnd if anyone's interested, here's the digby post. Kinda sad that she goes out of her way to send them traffic, and the whiners trash her, as they'd trashed her on their site earlier. Pretty hilarious, and you'll recognize a lot of the names in the comments. And the response on Corrente.whiner: Methinkth They Doth Pwotestht Too Much? Or Perhapth They Pwotesth Inthufithientwy?
The funniest part? 93 comments with one or two saying "aw, they're not that bad" and the whiners discuss how those one or two have more thoughtful comments so We're da Winnas! Great fun, I tells ya.
btw, snark, do you comment at Tbogg? Someone's using your schtick there - getting the folks all riled. Funny.
Posted by Twinky P* at November 9, 2009 02:33 PMOn Stupak -- Hey, even Ezra gets it:
Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment did not make abortion illegal. And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.
And speaking of the moral bankruptcy of excrementalist "progressives," twinky p exults on trying to trash another blogger's fundraiser when that blogger's trying to raise money to pay their fuel bill. Hard to imagine anything more vicious and petty-minded -- with the possible exception of, well, forcing poor women into coathangar mode. Yay!
I didn't trash your fundraiser, ya moron, you and vastleft did by trashing digby in the thread where she generously linked to your fundraiser. Professional victim, indeed.
Posted by Twinky P* at November 9, 2009 03:24 PMThe Ezra Klein piece does not show how the Stupak amendment is going to force anyone into using a coat hanger to end an unwanted pregnancy.
The poor women you claim are being sold out will benefit gretly from healthcare reform that will give them access to all measure of other medical services which they currently may be unable to afford. The fact remains, elective abortion is a choice and most insurance plans do not cover it. Are the medical necessity portions of this amendment unduly restrictive? Perhaps, but that can be changed.
Posted by snark at November 9, 2009 03:25 PMRep. Bart Stupak's amendment did not make abortion illegal. And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.
Not really. 88% of health insurance plans now cover abortions. Stupak prevents that. Private insurance will no longer be allowed to cover abortion, so it blocked that too. Women will still be allowed to get married...for now
OK, I don't like this Stupak amendment, but 41 dems are ready to stop health care reform because of it??
The amendment still allows for federal subsidies to cover abortion in the case of rape, incest of life of the mother (though not health.)
So how is not covering abortion any different than not covering plastic surgery? Elective abortion is elective. Does insurance routinely cover elective procedures just because they're legal? This isn't worth killing the health care bill over. I need to find out what my congresswoman is planning to do.
Posted by CG at November 9, 2009 04:42 PM88% of insurance plans cover elective abortion? Or medically recommended abortion?
Posted by snark at November 9, 2009 05:14 PMPrivate insurance will no longer be allowed to cover abortion, so it blocked that too.
That's untrue.
Posted by snark at November 9, 2009 05:52 PMThat's untrue.
Whatever you say. They don't rescind paying customers, either.
That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government. The House health care bill will also provide subsidies to help people and small businesses purchase plans on an exchange. This represents a lucrative new market for insurers: anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four qualifies for assistance, as well as certain small companies. But to gain access to these new customers, insurers will have to drop abortion coverage from their plans."Posted by phidipides at November 9, 2009 06:22 PM
What you wrote is;
Private insurance will no longer be allowed to cover abortion, so it blocked that too.
That's not what the story above says. Stupak in no way prevents private insurance from being allowed to cover abortion. Private insurers can cover whatever they want. As long as they don't want to take federal dollars. And the story also repeats the vague and likely inaccurate 88% abortion coverage statistic. No one seems interested in determining whether that % of abortion coverage is for elective abortions or medically recommended abortions. Seeing as most insurance is for profit I find it highly unlikely that businesses that routinely rescind coverage from paying customers would be jumping at the opportunity to cover a women's desire to end an unwanted if otherwise perfectly normal pregnancy. Or is that one area where the big bad insurance companies find a conscience? Or maybe they just lust for the blood of the unborn?
They don't rescind paying customers, either.
Come on Phidipides. We can converse like adults can't we?
I think Stupak is a bad amendment. So, apparently, does Obama. I think it's unlikely to make it into the Senate bill without being modified to bring it back in line with existing limitations on federal financing of abortion services. But I just find the doomsday coat hanger rhetoric somewhat akin to the teabaggers shouting about how the public option is going to kill the private insurance industry.
Posted by snark at November 9, 2009 06:47 PMAnybody who can't hear it from me on the pro-sepsis, pro coat-hangar amendment, try meteor blades.
* * *
Jeebus, stinky, can't ya stop reliving your great triumph on a comment thread, like, ever? I'm proud of you, mkay? Now are you happy?
Posted by lambert strether.corrente@yahoo.com at November 9, 2009 07:11 PMJeebus, stinky, can't ya stop reliving your great triumph on a comment thread, like, ever?
So sorry to burden you with a difference of opinion.
I'm proud of you, mkay? Now are you happy?
I couldn't give a crap what you think of me. Perhaps what people on blog comment threads think of you is important to you. Seems that way. I'm just here to offer my point of view and engage in a discussion. Sorry that's so trying for you.
Posted by at November 9, 2009 07:27 PMShit, snark, I think he's talking to me. And he's drunk. Oy. I guess he'd rather deal with the heckler than engage in a discussion?
Posted by Twinky P* at November 9, 2009 08:23 PMJust realized my name was not on that last comment (@ 7:27PM).
Twinky - stinky.
I suppose that makes sense. Sorry.
I still don't give a crap what he, or anyone on here, thinks of me.
Posted by snark at November 10, 2009 07:04 AMCome on Phidipides. We can converse like adults can't we?
I was being ironical. 61% of my State's employed have no insurance. When (okay, if) the mandates hit, do you think the insurers are going to take the high road and say, "We must spare a woman's access to insured abortions," or say "Hot damn! Look at all the Federal money we can get for premiums!" And as soon as that insurer takes Federal money in my state that sets their national policy on covering abortions.
Posted by phidipides at November 10, 2009 12:02 PMLook, I'm no lover of healthcare insurance for profit. It's a monumental conflict of interest. Period. There is an opportunity here that will not last to advance how many people have access to a broad range of medical services that will help many of them live healthier more productive lives. So to make the argument that it would have been better to have the House bill die without coming to a vote rather than have an anti-abortion financing amendment attached to it struck me as dumb. And to raise the spector of women resorting to coat hanger abortions because they can't get insurance to pay for an elective abortion when no one really knows how many actually currently have access to insurance financed elective abortions stikes me as a bit to similiar to the fearmongering used by the right. Ya know, the other group trying to kill this legislation. So you can tell me how I must want women to die because I think getting the reform process actually into the works is more important than protecting the right to have insurance pay for abortions. But it seems to me that the lives of the 44,000 people who died last year because their lack of insurance denied them access to medical care are not worth any less than the lives of women who might die because they couldn't afford to pay for their own elective abortion. And yes, I know that the language related to exceptions in the Stupak amendment is flawed and needs to be fixed. Another example of the people who don't want the government getting between you and your doctor putting the government between you and your doctor. Why it's so hard for the Democrats to make that case so clear is beyond me.
Posted by snark at November 10, 2009 12:50 PM