The roles are reversed.. (0.00 / 0)

The conservadems always had more clout in this bill 'cos they wanted to kill nay attempt at reform in the first place.  The progressives wanted to help.  Well, now, we have a situation where the bill is so poisoned, that liberals really will kill the bill, since it is now seen as significantly hurting the overall cause of health care reform.  The conservadems really want the abortion stuff in there 'cos it's a massive anti-abortion expansion (potentially--it's not as black and white as it seems).  The question is who wants what more?

I wouldn't say the liberals have the edge here, but at least the leverage has drawn even.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 21:48:10 PM CST

Liberal Death Sentence (4.00 / 2)

I know people like to give more satanical reasons why Blue Dogs have more clout, but it really does boil down to who is really willing to kill legislation.  Most of the time, liberals are trying to get the most they can.  The Progressive Block was always more theoretical than literal, because most (thought not all) thought something was better than nothing.

But in this case, it seems there really are liberals who will simply vote against this bill due to the Stupak amendment.  It isn't theoretical or a push for more power or a bluff, they actually oppose this legislation.  The threat instantly becomes much, much more believable.

Hopefully, the same isn't true on the other side.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 23:38:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wanting something too much (4.00 / 4)

When does "focusing like a laser" on an issue become wanting it too much?

Is Obama so fixated on passing something called Health Care Reform (and let us, for the sake of argument, assume that anything better than the current House Bill could not have been passed in 2009 - after listening all Saturday to that Republican gabfast convinced me that this may possibly be true) that he makes it easier for him to be "rolled" by the likes of a Stupak?

I think so.  If you want this that bad you might be able to convince yourself that the Stupak amendment isn't really all that much worse than current law.  It isn't true, but you could possibly make yourself believe it for a day or two, until people start to wake up from their weekend hangover.

Or consider the Middle East, where Obama began with what looked like possibly the beginning of a promising break with Bush policy and now looks like more of the same old same old.  Can't risk Health Care by stirring up dissension among Obama's Jewish support, many of whom are stalwart on Health Care.  Best stick to the tried and true Mideast policies.

And on and on.

If everyone knows you HAVE TO have health care, suddenly by threatening to go against it,  others can extract concessions they wouldn't have dreamt of before.

Do we actually HAVE TO have Health Care this year?  Maybe not.  It would sure be nice.  But do we actually have to?  And even if we do, do we have to telegraph it like a quarterback who can't take his eyes off his intended receiver?  Maybe "Make them Filibuster" is the best we can do now.  You want historical parallels - how many Southern filibusters had to happen before Civil Rights legislation was finally passed?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:45:53 PM CST

PPP did an analysis over at their blog... (4.00 / 2)

For democrats to survive next years' elections... the results?  Yeah, they have to...  but, it also has to be good enough that Dems will be willing to come out and vote as a result!

There's the rub!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 23:01:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Questions for the Open Left community... (0.00 / 0)

I don't fully understand the amendment, but based on McCaskill's comments it seems the amendment bans both public and private funds going to abortion.

First of all, I agree entirely that the ban on private funds is ridiculous, but how do people feel about public funds going to abortion (in non-medically necessary cases)? I admit I'm a bit conflicted on that point and would like to hear any arguments in favour or against. In Canada, medicare covers every type of abortion.

Secondly, why is there a ban on public funds if there's already a law addressing this? Is it because the current bill allows it?

I don't see any chance of this amendment making it into the final bill.

---

by: frankenheimer @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 22:50:33 PM CST

If Reid excludes this from the initial bill... (0.00 / 0)

....then, there is no chance.  My guess is that a compromise will somehow be worked out, but it will be difficult.  Apparently, the Catholic Bishops are now the fourth branch of government and have veto power on any bill.  They love this thing 'cos when the exchanges expand, so do the restrictions.  You won't get them to back off of it very easily.

The current law only addresses direct expenditures (i.e. medicaid, medicare).  In this case tax credits are being used to fund the subsidies, so they do not fall under he Hyde amendment.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 23:06:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm worried that... (4.00 / 1)

Insurers will basically start doing what the Stupak amendment does on their own... namely, removing abortion coverage and selling separate "riders" for it.  All of this nonsense could very well mean we need an anti-Stupak law to actually stop insurers from doing this.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 23:33:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe... it's hard to say... (4.00 / 1)

Most Americans are on self-insured plans... i.e. the employer pays all the bills and the insurer just processes the claims.  So, it's not like they are part of a specific "plan", although the formulations are probably very similar.

Since abortions cost way less then childbirth, one would think that insurers would have incentives to include them.

Regardless, a Kaiser study found that only 14% of people used private insurance to fund abortions, and I bet most of those were emergency situations in the hospital like ectopic pregnancies.  The practical effect of the stupak bill is probably not as large as presumed, but it might become a lot bigger as the exchanges are expanded... that's why the Church is so dug in on this one... it could potentially decrease abortion availability over time.  Although "availability" is not the right word... costs would not be covered, so it would just be another item on the list of procedures that insurers will find a way not to pay for.  It doesn't mean that access is restricted, just that it will cost more.  In essence, people will be "punished" for using it, just as they are "punished" for getting an MRI without the insurer's approval.

The amendment itself is unwieldy... TPM has an article that states that no one knows exactly how it would even work in the exchanges...  

This is going to become a difficult battle going forth.  It's basically religion on both sides, with raw emotion dictating the day, because it's so personal.  Neither side feels it can compromise on an issue like this, so I don't see how this will manage to work itself out in the end.

And folk like Ben Nelson have found a convenient excuse to become "president" for the week.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 23:50:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What I think will happen (0.00 / 0)

Is that insurers will offer supplemental insurance that bundles together coverage for several things not under the list of things that must be covered by core insurance.  It will be like cable channel packages, where people will buy for a few specific parts of the policy while also paying for coverage in other areas that they are not necessarily interested in.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:38:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Medicare (4.00 / 1)

So, basically, pro-lifers should support Medicare-For-All as a way to prevent abortions?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 03:34:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

my understanding is (4.00 / 1)

the bill goes beyond the status quo and does ban subsidies from going to people for plans with access to choice on abortion.  The line that obama has used in response is that it's not an abortion bill but a health carebill and therefore the status quo (no federal funding for abortions) should be what's in the final bill, and I assume it will be, possibly worse but not as bad as the Stupak amendment unless they can get enough cloutt o actually fail the bill (which I doubt, given that at that point, they will be voting on 'health care or no health care' which will kill anyone at the polls, i speculate).  so i think that theb ill will be bad for reproductive health access, but probably not much worse than the status quo (I think...it depends how much the negotiators cave).  It also poses other dangers (e.g. "if we have a public option, it will undermine abortion rights because it won't provide funding")

On the flipside, I think that the real problem, and the one that is only beginning to be addressed, is that the status quo is disgusting.  On principle, it is wrong.  In practice, if particular senators or congersspeople want their constituencies' women to not have access to reproductive health access, then the solution should be a mixed bag - rather than the imposition of their demands on the entirety of the federal government and its programmes.  I'm not sure, though, what the implications are for things like MEdicare Plan B - which allowed states to set up low income health care programmes.  NOt sure if those allowed reproductive health funding.

And of course the broader issue is what has allowed this to happen - namely that women's rights issues and feminism more broadly is almost wholly excluded from these debates.  It would have been nice to see some kind of intervention by someone in the same way that Kucinich intervened on Single Payer Healthcare, but that isn't going to happen without those people feeling like they have a base to appeal to.  And given what percentage of the Democratic electorate, the electorate as a whole, and the population are women, it is unconscionable that this kind of discrimination is being allowed.  It runs against the consensus on abortion - 'safe, legal, and rare' - which itself is a bit murky, but at least provides a principle that a lot of people can agree with.  (e.g. that could result in allowing federal funding, but providing consultation to people about what the emotional, mental, and physical consequences of abortions are).

But of course that woudl be too rational, humane and practical...

---

by: dr anonymous @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:21:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This Slate piece does a good job of explaining how the Stupak bill (0.00 / 0)

would impact private insurance:
http://www.slate.com/id/2234602/

And thanks for your excellent commentary.  

---

by: sb @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 07:42:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What a clusterfuck! (4.00 / 2)

They couldn't figure out before hand that this wasn't going to go over well? The Democrats suck. The Republicans suck more.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

---

by: Stoic @ Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 23:01:34 PM CST

I suspect the more important pushback (0.00 / 0)

came, not from bloggers, but from constituents AND from funding organizations, particularly Emily's List.  McCaskill owes a large amount of credit for her election to Emily's List support and, if my email is any indication, they're pissed about the Stupak amendment (noting that not a single Emily's List candidate in the House voted for it).  

---

by: BDB @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:57:13 AM CST

leadership gap (0.00 / 0)

We had prior notice that this amendment was comming, and so did Obama. Yet he remained noncommittal until after the fact.

Now he states his opposition....??!

Hopefully, he will now take a more identifiable position on other issues that he has an interest in BEFORE the vote.

You know, the concept of leadership.

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 09:22:35 AM CST