Health reform debate and vote open thread

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 14:15


Update 5:07 p.m.: Anthony Weiner and Steve Cohen talk to the tea party protesters:

Sunday's Tea Party protesters have been buoyed by a host of Republican lawmakers who have left the floor of the House to hold up signs, wave flags and lead anti-health care chants from the Capitol's second floor balcony.

And then, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a devout progressive and single-payer health care advocate, came out to great them.

"They've been asking for me," the New York Democrat told a small gathering of reporters as he prepared to face the inevitable avalanche of boos and vitriol coming his way.

Stepping into public view, he showcased a large grin, began hugging his Republican colleagues and even flashed a wave at the crowd. They booed. And booed some more.

Update 4:13: While the deal has been made for this bill, the fight over Stupak will continue during a rulemaking process that will last at least a year. From the text of the executive order:

The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

So, the fight is over for this bill.  However, this is an open-ended and vague process that will continue for another year.

Update 4:10  Stupak to vote yes. The bill will pass.

Update 4:06: Oliver Willis has the White House statement on the executive order.

Update 3:53 Everyone is buzzing about a supposed deal to get Stupak to a "yes." White House supposedly to release text of executive order soon, too.

Update 3;34 p.m.  Stupak to announce his vote at 4:00 pm press conference.  But, this is the third press conference he has called this weekend.

I am moving most updates to twitter.  You can see them in the box at the top of the second column.

Update 3: Vote happening now. Not one of the major ones.

Update 2: This is still about the Stupak bloc. Dems need at least five more votes, and really six, given Loretta Sanchez. Boucher, Kanjorksi and Sanchez are the only three non-Stupak votes left to get.  Nine potential Stupak votes remain.

****

Update: Tanner, L. Davis, McMahon stay at "no." Pomeroy and Foster stay at "yes."

DDay vote count 209-209 without Stupak bloc.

New York Times vote count at 211-209 without Stupak bloc.

The difference between the two counts is that The New York Times has Loretta Sahnchez as a "yes" (which is a mistake), and Michaud as a "yes" (which might be right).  Otherwise, they are identical.

****

Louise Slaughter is reading the rule right now. You can watch live on C-SPAN here.  This is an open thread.

Chris Bowers :: Health reform debate and vote open thread

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Health reform debate and vote open thread | 47 comments
Missed his name (0.00 / 0)
But the last wingnut just claimed that this bill creates a system identical to the British system.  

Oh, now he forced a recorded vote.  And he's wearing the mandatory wingnut accoutrement, the bowtie.

oh, it was Ryan (4.00 / 1)
He's got what Digby once coined, "the wingnut shining"

[ Parent ]
re: ryan (0.00 / 0)
2:17 pm - Rep. Paul Ryan (R) begins by raising a point of order related to the large number of "unfunded" mandates in the bill. Ryan's talking point mandates, mandates, mandates!

[ Parent ]
voted (0.00 / 0)
2:42 pm - They are now voting on Ryan's point of order if it did pass it would kill the bill. Expect this vote to closely mirror, but not be identical, to the final vote on the bill.

3:03 pm - The point of order failed with 228 voting with the Democrats.


[ Parent ]
CSPAN (4.00 / 1)
has announced that a deal between Stupak and the White House has been reached.
Yay, Boo (0.00 / 0)
Yay to passage, boo to Stupak and anti-choice politics.

Damn abortion politics are complex and stupid.  Just let woman and families decide what is right for themselves.  If the issue is complex, let the individual ponder the complexity and make the best possible decision.  You'd thank that would be conservative.  Never works that way, though.

Looking for some statistics on abortion opinion I found this compilation of surveys if anyone cares to take a peak.  In a nut shell:

* "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are roughly equally divided,
* always + mostly legal outnumber always + mostly illegal
* most "pro-lifer"s think abortion should sometimes be legal
* most "pro-choicer"s think abortion should sometimes be illegal.

Clear as mud.

"Just let woman and families decide what is right for themselves." (4.00 / 2)
if only the President or the DNC were willing to stand up for this idea
[ Parent ]
You left this out.... (4.00 / 1)
many many pro lifers are really just pro birth...

they don't give a cr*p about the baby once it is born...they would just as soon take away that baby's right to healthcare, to a good education, to food if they could.

Damn hypocrites.
If there are such places as heaven or hell and getting to one of the other is dependent on their adherence to the beliefs of a man names Jesus, the right and the conservadems I truly believe will burn in hell.  

[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
Not in the surveys, though.  :-)

Actually, I think we've made some decent progress with the "life begins at conception and ends at birth" joke.  A lot of Evangelicals, still anti-choice, have recently embraced this joke as representing what is wrong with their side, moving them closer to American Catholic.  Unfortunately, this increases the possibility of more anti-choice Democrats, so there's a bit of good news, bad news element to that.

But yeah, the typical anti-choice Republican (at least as seen via their leaders) is all about retribution.  Those "pro-life" voters who think abortion should sometimes be legal are mostly talking about when the woman or girl is not at "fault", like in cases of rape or incest.

[ Parent ]
it's the exceptions that reveal the whole absolutism on it as a farce (0.00 / 0)
if life beings at conception, then regardless of whether an embryo is the product of a brother and a sister having sex or the embryo is not, it is a life.  

however, a woman in a consensual incestual relationship would be allowed to kill a 'life.' according to pro-lifers' logic, even while they attempt to claim to be moral.  

because...?

you hit the nail on the head when you talked about 'fault' - this debate is not about embryos or God - it is about a segment of the population employing religion to assert that THEY and the government have the right to decide what is acceptable sexual behaviour for women and what is not.

and after that the muddling kicks in....

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
To be fair, many of the far right anti-choicers don't support it even in the case of incest, rape, danger to the mom.   So although they are wrong, they do at least hold a common thought on it.

[ Parent ]
how many of them are in congress? :) (0.00 / 0)
and willing to put their money where their mouths are?
[ Parent ]
I've said my final words on HCR (4.00 / 2)


at My Left Wing

WAY too long to repost here. To bad there isn't a community posts area here, I wouldn't have to blogwhore.

Not that I'm AVERSE to that, as anyone who knows me knows.

: )

And if anyone doesn't feel like following the link, the GIST is...

"Kill the Bill? Fuck that."

It was in response to people on the left advocating torpedoing the legislation because of how badly the bill (and admittedly, it does) sucks.

You can post diaries here (4.00 / 1)
But they are seldom read.  Quick Hits have taken their place in terms of real usage.
[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
Which sucks because some people feel the need to post long ass diaries in the QH.   I'm cool with links, or even if the bulk on the info is after the fold, but the people that take up all the WH with multiple paragraphs are just assholes.
[ Parent ]
I agree with you on this, Maryscott. (4.00 / 2)
I suspect I am in the minority on Open Left in doing so but IMHO your rant was righteous.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 1)
I'd say your in the majority on Openleft.  The kill the bill people are vocal, but its the same 12-15 people posting.  There are a lot more, pass the bill people.
[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
At least your honest about blogwhoring.
[ Parent ]
So WTF Is This Year-Long Rule-making Going To Be Like? (4.00 / 2)
We start off with the premise that Stupak is a liar, operating in bad faith & Obama is trying to appease him.

Sound familiar?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Presumably, we will get another year (4.00 / 2)
of Democrats insisting that they are not doing anything to support abortion rights.  Lack of core values is certainly what voters are looking for.

Also, I assume they will find a way to take swipes at the undocumented, the GLBT community, and unions (sorry if I left your group out - it's hard to keep track.)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Obama won, Stupak lost (0.00 / 0)
I agree with Howard Dean.  This was a figleaf given to Stupak.  He won nothing substantive with his long obstructionism.  He was allowed to win something symbolic - a little increased respect for anti-abortion Democrats.  He was not forced to walk away with his tail between his legs and no fig leaf.  I am not happy to see this, but I can understand why pro-choice Democrats were willing to pay this price instead of a more substantive price.  

The fight to overturn the Hyde Amendment is one that nobody was waging now in any serious way, so we could hardly have expected to have won THAT fight in THIS battle.  But the attempt to further erode a woman's right to choose has been turned back.  The ball is back in the pro-choice camp's court and needs to pushed where it always needed to be pushed - as a separate issue.

Now, the question is, why was Stupak forced to accept a figleaf?  I suspect that ultimately he didn't have the votes.  Not all of those six or seven who stood with him on that platform may have stood there with him in the end, if he had carried out his threat to the bitter end.

In other words, his bluff was called.  And when it was called he knew enough to fold 'em.

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

[ Parent ]
I forgot to mentiion (0.00 / 0)
Now, the question is, why was Stupak forced to accept a figleaf?  I suspect that ultimately he didn't have the votes.  

I forgot to mention, of course, that Stupak himself admitted this in his press conference.  

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

[ Parent ]
I swear to god... (4.00 / 3)
I think Stupak has been doing nothing more than using this (which makes him, frankly, even MORE odious and morally reprehensible) as a way to raise his fucking profile without having to PAY anyone to do it. Why hire a PR firm when you can pull THIS grandstanding bullshit? It's only women's lives he's fucking with -- and, oh, yeah -- the rest of the goddamned country.

I've run out of disgusting and painful things to wish on that scumbag.  

[ Parent ]
Sure (4.00 / 2)
that makes sense.  Don't disagree at all.

Now to donate to his primary opponent.

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

[ Parent ]
Way ahead of you. (0.00 / 0)
We're moving back to traverse City, Michigan this July -- that makes Dave fucking Republican Camp my goddamned Congressman...

but I'm already planning to work on Connie's campaign. It's a lost cause, I'm afraid -- but maybe once Iget up there I'll get a different sense of things. What I know about that district is that it is as red as the blood of the women Stupak would consign to death by illegal abortion...

but maybe things have changed.

My District (1st) was a very narrow margin of victory for Dave "Douchebag" Camp in '08. I loathe the motherfucker. I'm spoiled -- been living in CA for 13 years, but following TC politics... can't believe I'm going to have to be represented by a goddamned Republican again...

[ Parent ]
eh (0.00 / 0)
in your opinion, how many deaths (from "illegal abortions" will this executive order lead to?

[ Parent ]
Plausible, but if it wasn't necessary, why give him the satisfaction? (N/T) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
the "yes" votes of Stupak's "supporters" were contingent on the figleaf being provided?

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Only in Washington (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, well.... The sooner he becomes part of history, the better. I just wish -- thinking of the update on Weiner -- that now that they've got their crappy bill passed, the establishment Democrats would be a little less magnanimous in victory. I mean, I don't want these expletive deleted teapartiers dead, but I wouldn't mind seeing them transported to an all-white island somewhere where the rest of us wouldn't have to watch -- or listen -- to them licking each other's wounds.
[ Parent ]
:-) (4.00 / 2)
As much as I agree with you, I can't completely give the back of my hand to Marcy Kaptur who is as solid as they come on Wall St./trade/labor issues.

This is the big tent.

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

[ Parent ]
no obama and stupak won, and women's reproductive health rights lost (0.00 / 0)
it's bad enough it is in the bill - committing to further politicise health care as a football in the battle to keep women disempowered - especially poor women - is egregious.

but the point of my comment is to keep the analysis straight even if the views on what should or should not have happened are diverse on this site.

[ Parent ]
How could women's reproductive health rights have lost (0.00 / 0)
when they haven't been eroded?  

We were never going to be able to expand women's reproductive health rights in a general healthcare bill.  You can't lose a fight you're not participating in.  

Sure, there's been an erosion of the pro-choice position for many years, and perhaps the pro-choice may be faulted for thinking that Obama automatically had their back and that they therefore didn't need to fight very hard.  They were not the only ones who made this mistake.

That can be reversed, and should be reversed.  But that victory was never going to be won on the battlefield of this Health Care bill.

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

[ Parent ]
a year long debate in which women's reproductive rights are used as a political football in a health care bill (4.00 / 3)
...and the idea that federal funding for abortions has to be considered when a health is legislated on is reinforced?  and the entire democratic establishment, including a woman speaker of the house, shows a willingness to sell out women's reproductive rights in order to get a bill through that has nothing to do with abortion?

that's how women's reproductive rights were attacked and undermined by this debate.  the only possibly positive aspect to all this is that it could have led to progressive backlash - but i don't see in strong form really, anywhere, that i visit.  maybe it's there somewhere else.

[ Parent ]
Okay, what would you have done then? (0.00 / 0)
Let's have no more fantasy talk about "good guys" vs "bad guys".  All the corporate sell-outs aren't conveniently lined up with the anti-choicers.  And not all the pro-choice champions are ready to regulate Wall Street meaningfully, much less end the ruinous free trade policies or pass any of Labor's agenda.

We've got every possible combination of these stands within our Democratic caucus in Congress.  And these aren't the only issues that divide us.

Open Left, of course, probably knows its stand on all of these issues.  Given that we can't enforce our stand on all these issues, how do you plan to move forward on all these issues?  What value has all this hand-wringing?

Do you want to go back to the days when the Democratic party had a pro-choice litmus test but somehow couldn't dream even then of repealing the Hyde Amendment - much less get anything done on Health Care?  Is that really where you want to go?  I don't.

We have GOT to finally put aside our fairy tales and deal SERIOUSLY the poltics that's really out there.

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

[ Parent ]
setting aside the insults for a second... (0.00 / 0)
this is the best you were going to do with this crop of democrats.  whether it was worth doing or not is at a level of analysis i'm not capable of.  my point was mainly to note that this was not a fight between establishment democrats and pro-life democrats in which the former won and the latter lost - this was a fight between them in which women were used as a political football and the whole fight presupposes that women lost.  not noting that is embarassing because even cs aif you throw someone under a bus it should be admitted. that's why i like and respect chris - he gave you his honest thoughts above and they're decent.   not noting that this is how debates about women FREQUENTLY have worked for the past 25 years, both inside and outside the United States, is ignorant.  Not noting that the feminist movement in the United States has limitted power right now, to say the least, is dumb.

and back to the namecalling - what would i have done?  what i am doing, more or less, but in a greater degree.  i agree with you about fairy tales - overrelying on electoral politics when the establishment is mindlessly pro-action anti-taking on interests and the people who would be willing to take on intersts are minimally influential (for reasons that can be debated) is foolish.  relying on it EVER is foolish, but people get convinced when there are large progressive majorities that make it possible to forget about the underlying structural aspects of politics - that money = power, that status = power, that gender is an influence, that citizenship status is an influence, that class is an influence, etc.  all of which are institutions and cultural realities rooted in society, not just in Congress or the White House.

So I'll just post this again and hope that more people take community organizing seriously and take the opportunity to learn about it and begin applying it:

http://www.tenant.net/Organize...

but the one problem with 'wins' is that sometimes they make it extremely unlikely you'll change because they reentrench your belief in what led you to the 'win' - which is again back tot he point of assessing what you got honestly.

[ Parent ]
oh and in hindsight i probably would have prioritised a jobs bill and a HOLC effort (0.00 / 0)
rather than health care...but that's me ;)  not because health care is not important, but because it is.  that's why i'm glad these people can't pass what truly will be once in a geneartion or half a generation immigration legislation.
[ Parent ]
This Assumes A Rational Framework (4.00 / 1)
Obama won, Stupak lost

I agree with Howard Dean.  This was a figleaf given to Stupak.  He won nothing substantive with his long obstructionism.

And there's nothing rational about any of this.  That's the point I was trying to make--that we ignore the irrationalism afoot at our peril.

If it had been rational, Stupak would never have raised an objection in the first place.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
I'd say its much easier to kill Stupak as a standalone bill.  
[ Parent ]
what the f*** is up with Loretta Sanchez? (0.00 / 0)
Does she really wanna be the only member of the California delegation not to vote for Health care Reform?

The California Democratic Party convention is April 16-18 in LA--Loretta might find herself facing a censure motion....

We'll be watching her vote on #hcr very very carefully

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Mad Professah Lectures

Sanchez is voting yes (0.00 / 0)
She tweeted, "Can't wait to cast my vote on this historic piece of legislation!"

That does not sound like the Tweet of someone voting no.

[ Parent ]
so where is kucinich's executive order? (4.00 / 1)
or did he get something else?  did any of the congressional progressives?  

if not, what is the argument, regardless of whether you support the bill or not, for why they shouldn't have held out longer in the hopes of getting something - even a figleaf?

Oh, he got his figleaf too. (0.00 / 0)
He got the same figleaf Stupak got.  He's not being read out of the party, just as Stupak isn't.  The Big Tent survives.  

Status Quo Ante with a few minor health care improvements.

And Kucinich got that figleaf while openly saying "this bill is nothing like what I wanted."

He's ALREADY gearing up for the next fight, when this bill's inadequacies are proven for all to see.

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

[ Parent ]
"Read out of the party"? (0.00 / 0)
He's not being read out of the party, just as Stupak isn't.  The Big Tent survives.

Huh?  What do you mean?

[ Parent ]
He isn't shunned. (0.00 / 0)
That's what I meant.  He could have been.  There were those calling for it.  Kos for one.  Primaried from the right.  That could have been done.  It isn't being done.

Obviously, I was being somewhat dramatic.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.

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

[ Parent ]
Wait, so Kucinich's "reward" for abandoning his principles and caving in (0.00 / 0)
is that he gets some nice words from Markos and a couple of other assholes?  And that he might not get hit with some empty primary threat (which would have to wait until 2012)?

Gee, I wonder why other Democrats in Congress who are voting No aren't falling over each other to get this fantastic reward!  "I get to hang out with the cool kids, yay!"

[ Parent ]
Too smart? (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps because Kucinich is smart and actually cares about policy, so he would find a fig leaf that does nothing to be insulting instead of desired?
[ Parent ]
continuing a debate a year after a bill passes is not nothing (0.00 / 0)
this is an institutional mechanism to ensure that someone, somewhere is going to keep the issue of funding for abortions live.  whether it does any personal benefit to stupak is different, but it IS a concession, imo.

i could be wrong, but then i want to hear the story of how at the last minute the democratic establishment said they had the votes and stupak contacted them and said it was in both of their best interests for him to vote yes on the bill and how do they make that happen.

if someone can tell me that that's what happened, i will believe that this is a figleaf that means nothing rather than a continuation - albeit not-as-bad as some other things that have been discussed - of the anti-women trend in this debate.

[ Parent ]
Health reform debate and vote open thread | 47 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox