“Democratic women are outraged, saying it will require women in the exchanges to buy a separate insurance rider to cover abortion, even if they buy private insurance, in effect expanding the Hyde restrictions to the private sector. “It is ridiculous,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. “No one plans an unplanned pregnancy.” Oakland Democrat Barbara Lee said it will “take us back to the days of back-alley abortions,” and is a dangerous intrusion of religion into the state. “I was raised Catholic,” Lee said, “but in no way should we allow the government to dictate religiously inspired policy. We’re a democracy, not a theocracy.””
You're viewing everything posted on November 8, 2009
“…Conservative Republicans are hobbled. We’ve got a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President … in what is arguably the most important Democratic domestic policy initiative of the past three decades, also during what is arguably the easiest point in the process for liberals—the House vote—and the bishops weren’t able to convince Democrats to even consider expanding Medicaid or even consider illegal immigrants. But the Stupak Amendment restricting abortion?In the bag.All of the levers of power are with liberals. Did it matter? No. Did the Conference of Bishops make a tough push for the Blue Dogs to expand Medicaid? Please. Did they put their full lobbying weight behind an immigrant provision? Don’t make me laugh.It’s clear what their priority is: abortion. The Catholic hierarchy is operationally right-wing. The rest is fluff. They’re not wringing their hands in the rectory tonight over their mostly-failed-agenda. They’re shaking hands and slapping backs. And we all know why.”— {generic_}, on health care reform, the Stupak Amendment, and the real agenda of the Roman Catholic Church
“In the House, the Stupak anti-abortion amendment passed 240 to 194 with one member voting present. 64 Democrats votes yes on the Stupak amendment. The Stupak amendment would effectively ban insurance companies from selling insurance plans that cover elective abortion on the individual and small group market. It would be one of the most far reaching national restriction placed on abortion in decades. It could also potential be used by insurance companies to allow them to legally discriminate against low income Americans.Abortion would be the only legal medical procedure that the bill would ban insurance companies from covering. Abortion will be the only legal medical procedure the bill will officially “ration.” By voting for the amendment, 64 Democrats and all but one Republican voted to put a government bureaucrat between you, your insurance provider, and your doctor. If you choose to have an abortion, your doctor is willing to refer the procedure, and your insurance provider is willing to pay for the procedure, this amendment will have a government bureaucrat prevent that from happening. For all the talk about small government, these representatives are more than happy to give the government more power as long as it is used to restrict a woman’s right to choose.You can see which Democrats voted for the Stupak amendment here.[Emphasis added above.]”
“Neither Republicans nor Democrats adequately acknowledge that it is deeply weird to tie health insurance to one’s job, and even stranger to discuss health care reform as though it is primarily a matter of getting everyone insured.These two dysfunctional features are preserved in the legislation just passed by the House. Employer- provided health care distorts labor markets by incentivizing workers to stay put. But voters are risk-averse. They’d prefer to keep the insurance they have. Thus President Obama and Democratic leaders pushed reform that built on the employer provided health care system, rather than improving it.The focus on insurance is even weirder. Voters overwhelmingly agree, for example, that a person who already has cancer — or is very likely to develop it — should get the medical care they need to save their life without being bankrupted or put into lifelong debt. That is certainly my position. But the situation I’ve described isn’t one best addressed by insurance, a tool used when outcomes are unknown. If we want to cover folks with pre-existing conditions or those genetically predisposed to certain ailments, let’s do so directly, rather than layering that requirement onto insurance companies as if it is part of a coherent scheme of pooling risk.A final necessary reform: addressing costs. The present pace of inflation in the health care sector is unsustainable. Bettering the situation requires price pressures driven by consumers. The present legislation doesn’t bring us closer to that reality either.It is increasingly likely that we’re going to wind up with a relatively expensive Democratic health care bill that doesn’t fix the fundamental problems with the current system. Blame for this failure is partly the fault of Republicans who’ve abdicated responsibility for advancing a positive agenda on the calculation that obstructionism is more politically advantageous. The whole ordeal makes me sick.”
With "Democrats" Like These...
…who needs Republicans? 64 Democrats joined 176 Republicans to stick a shiv in the backs of hundreds of thousands of poor women; bipartisanship at its “finest.” Notice how it’s always one-sided and hews to the right?
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Saturday to tighten a ban against using federal funds to finance abortions under the proposed Democratic healthcare reform legislation.
Opposition Republicans joined forces with anti-abortion Democrats to pass the amendment to the healthcare legislation on a vote of 240-194.
The amendment angered liberal Democrats who support abortion rights…
This is the kind of betrayal that led to me join the Green Party in 2008, and it’s the kind of betrayal that keeps me from donating to the odd Dem who still remembers that being a Democrat means not acting like a piece of right-wing trash.
“…[C]entrism is a political position too. And you see moderate bias — i.e., a preference for centrism — whenever a news outlet assumes that the truth must be “somewhere in the middle.” You see it whenever an organization decides that “balance” requires equal weight for an opposing position, however specious…Often, moderate bias is just the result of caution, but the effect is to bolster centrist political positions — not least by implying that they are not political positions at all but occupy a happy medium between the nutjobs. Meanwhile, conservatives see moderate bias as liberal, and liberals see it as conservative — letting journalists conclude that it’s not bias at all.Moderate bias also grows from a related phenomenon: status-quo bias. Journalists, like anyone, have a built-in bias toward believing that what was true yesterday will be true tomorrow. Establishment news outlets grow cozy and comfortable with other establishments. One reason some journalists insufficiently questioned the run-up to the Iraq war and underestimated the housing bubble was that they listened to their usual, credentialed sources…”
What Good Is A Democratic Majority If It Governs Like A Republican Majority?
Anthony Wiener has abandoned single-payer, joining the rest of the Dems who foolishly abandoned it months ago:
“I feel very strongly that the employer-based model is not the way to go and single-payer is the better way,” Mr. Weiner said in an interview. “But I never wanted it to be the situation where we literally let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”Unfortunately Mr.Wiener, the bill you have is so watered-down for the DINO Blue Dogs it doesn’t remotely approach “good.”
While Mr. Weiner said he recognized that his decision would disappoint legions of single-payer advocates, he said the danger to the larger bill was too great.
Forcing a vote on single-payer could be particularly problematic for lawmakers who represent districts that split heavily between liberal and more moderate or conservative voters. A vote against the single-payer issue would anger constituents on the left, while emboldening opponents on the right, making it more difficult to support the larger bill. Avoiding a vote on the issue, in turn, could allow centrist Democrats to take a tough vote in favor of the larger bill.
In short: Some members of the Democratic Party from the dumber districts are willing to fight against and even vote against actual progressive reform (in favor of supporting legislative pablum) out of fear that they may lose their seat to a Republican who will also fight against and vote against progressive reform.
Time for better Democrats.
