I could not have voted for the House bill, and I'm pretty pragmatic

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I am down with incremental, perfect not being enemy of the good, necessity of something being passed, importance of establishing a government role, benign slippery slope and all of that. I've had plenty of dust-ups with folks derided as "purists."

And I understand the human stakes as well or better than many who talk about the human stakes.

There is nothing easy or casual about this...

But they "went there." They got into civil rights and liberties, and that's my line in the sand on all things. That's the area where an inch really does equal a mile.

If I were in Congress I would never vote for any substantively anti-choice measure. (Or for any measure I believed to be unconstitutional, but that's a somewhat duplicative tangent.)

Not only does the measure restrict women, it also restricts business in an intolerable fashion. It amounts to telling businesses to alter their product lines based on majoritarian religious views with no compelling, or even rational state interest.

The perfect being the enemy of the good? That's a valuable concept for some things but a terrible concept when rights are involved.

Could Truman have gotten healthcare reform passed if it were whites only? That is not a flippant question. Truman faced substantial southern opposition on healthcare driven by fears of integrated medical facilities and such.

Would one vote for a whites only health plan because of all the good it would do (real good) for millions of people (real people)? One wouldn't oppose such a thing to deny healthcare to white people. One would oppose such a thing because certain fundamental rights concepts are deal-breakers. There can be no trade-offs... no, "You cannot read DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, but we will increase the bread ration." That bread would help real people but the question never gets to practicalities because it stumbles on a question of real RIGHTS.

Pragmatic on public policy within the constraints of idealism on individual rights. That's my deal.


One can argue the matter in terms of procedural practicality but the argument fails. To make sense of voting for the House bill requires that one believe that the anti-choice measures will be stripped in conference and (a necessary 'and') that the ultimate bill will pass.

Based on what we have seen, what is the evidence that a choice-neutral conference bill would pass? And where is the guarantee that a choice-hostile bill would ultimately fail?

It's a sad, sad thing. I want a bill. I want the little good things... to not throw the baby out with the bath-water. When push came to shove I would vote for a triggered PO, state-level exchanges, co-ops or an apple a frigging day.

But not anti-choice measures.

[KansasVoter]

1. +1 This place is full of "anything is better than nothing" fools!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. I agree that anything is better than nothing... as long as it doesn't assault basic rights.

If rights are not bright lines then where are we?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. ..

[ProSense]

5. Not anything, this

Starting next year, private insurers could no longer deny anyone coverage based on preexisting conditions, place lifetime limits on coverage or abandon people when they become ill. Insurers would be required to disclose and justify proposed premium increases to regulators, and could not remove adult children younger than 27 from their parents’ family policies.

For the elderly, the group that has been most skeptical of Obama’s initiative, the House package would immediately offer discounts on prescription drugs and reduce a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage, closing it entirely by 2019. Uninsured people who cannot get coverage could join temporary high-risk insurance pools, and unemployed workers would be permitted to keep their COBRA benefits until the public plan and insurance exchanges started in 2013.

link

“For all Americans, this legislation makes a big difference: no discrimination for pre-existing medical conditions, no dropped coverage if you are sick, no co-pays for preventive care. There is a cap on what you pay in but there is no cap on the benefits that you receive. It works for seniors closing the donut hole, offering better primary care, and strengthening Medicare for years to come. It works for women preventing insurance companies from charging women more than men for the same coverage. No longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition.

link

Supporters of gay rights have long been trying to change the tax treatment of health benefits provided by employers to the domestic partners of their employees. In effect, such benefits are now treated as taxable income for the employee, and the employer may owe payroll taxes on their fair-market value.

Under the bill, such benefits would be tax-free, just like health benefits provided to the family of an employee married to a person of the opposite sex.

Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, who proposed the change, said it would “correct a longstanding injustice, end a blatant inequity in the tax code and help make health care coverage more affordable for more Americans.”

Joseph R. Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, said federal tax law had not kept up with changes in the workplace.

link

[Jennicut]

6. Good points ProSense.

It will effect some of us here.

[IndianaGreen]

12. So you endorse this anti-abortion rights bill?

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study of the House bill, only 6 million Americans would be enrolled in the public option by the time it's fully phased in, in 2019. That's just 2 percent of the 282 million Americans younger than 65 (who aren't covered by Medicare). The CBO explains that the low numbers are in large part because the plan "would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans."

<snip>

Like the Senate bill, Pelosi's health care legislation includes a provision that mandates everyone to purchase insurance, with the government providing subsidies to the poor to help them get coverage. This is a bonanza for the insurance industry--a government requirement that tens of millions of people buy their defective product.

People who don't get coverage through their employer--or who have their health insurance dropped at work because companies will have a further incentive to dump benefits--will face a painful financial burden meeting the mandate, as the New York Times, a strong proponent of the Democrats' reform legislation, admitted in an editorial:

A survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 73 percent of the adults who tried to buy insurance on the open market over a three-year period never bought a plan--because they could not afford it, could not find a plan that met their needs, or were turned down.

Pending legislation would help some of them by preventing rejections or high charges based on health status and by setting minimum benefit requirements. But many people who might still find the premiums too high will face an agonizing choice: buy insurance coverage or pay a penalty of hundreds or even thousands of dollars per family if they still decide to forgo insurance.

A plan that forces people to buy insurance, and then offers them no affordable alternative, isn't reform at all, but the opposite. The federal government is bending over backward to protect the insurance industry's profits--and no matter what Obama administration officials say, they're doing it by requiring workers to pay more for health care than they did before.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/11/03/public-option-mirage

[Honeycombe8]

4. Listen....hear that? That was the sound of a body dropping dead from no health care reform.

But hey, you go ahead and stand on your principles. That's more important than lives being lost due to lack of health care. (don't forget your soap box)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. A question for you...

When people tell you that you obviously favor women dying in back-alley abortions do you consider it vile dishonest behavior that suggests your opponent has no real arguments beyond being a hateful moron?

You should.

Now, just try on those shoes.

Mmmm.... that's a nice fit.

[IndianaGreen]

13. 12 million Americans will remain without health care under this bill

and the public option was gutted by the House, replaced by an expensive exchange that will cost more than regular insurance.

Face it! Democrats caved in to the industry and they have the gall to come out calling this surrender a victory.

[Enrique]

8. some very committed pro-choice people voted for that bill

if you were in Congress yesterday, you would have listened to a very popular democratic president tell you about how this vote a historic moment and you'd be under a lot of pressure from a strong dem Speaker who has solid pro-choice credentials to pass this bill.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Some fine people voted for the Iraq War. So what?

I have supported three people who voted for Iraq: Kerry, Clinton, Biden.

I can even make an arguable case for their votes. They did get the inspectors back in, after all.

But I would have voted against the Iraq resolution. I just would have.

Not everyone is the same.

If there is no "line" then we are just animals.

Everyone puts the line someplace different, but we must each have our lines or else where are we?

[ProSense]

10. Kucinich voted for the Afghanistan war.

He could have at least held his nose to help people in need.

[Enrique]

14. many more anti-war people voted against the Iraq War

a majority of the dems in the house voted against the war.

Only a handful voted against this health legislation and none to my knowledge voted against it for pro-choice reasons.

If you were in Congress and drew the line there, you I believe would be the only one taking that strong a position. You would be more pro-choice on that issue than any other dem in Congress.

[phleshdef]

11. Sorry, I disagree with the amendment, but abortions are among the least of women healthcare worries.

Now breast cancer survivors would be able to get coverage.

Now women can't be charged with a "pre-existing" condition simply for being born with ovaries.

Now women who were raped and given precautionary anti-HIV medication can't be dropped or denied coverage.

Those are just a "sliver" of the things that only a fool would take a pass on.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but being able to access the ability to get a safe abortion in this country has never seemed like a huge issue before. Where are all the women complaining about this sudden inability to get an abortion whenever they don't want to have a baby?

I'm 100% pro-choice, but if the final bill doesn't allow tax dollars to be used to fund abortions that aren't rape, incest or life endangerment related, then so be it. I don't think its fair, but neither are a lot of healthcare related issues that are particular to women. This bill actually undoes a great deal of that unfairness.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. And not reading Doctor Zhivago is among the least of most people's problems

But you don't ban books... even if banning books helps people with breast cancer.

By the way, your claim to being 100% pro-choice is one of the most comical lies I have ever read.

People who are pro-choice do not say things like this:

"And correct me if I'm wrong, but being able to access the ability to get a safe abortion in this country has never seemed like a huge issue before. Where are all the women complaining about this sudden inability to get an abortion whenever they don't want to have a baby?"

[phleshdef]

16. Abortions weren't banned by the amendment. And yes I'm 100% pro-choice whether you like it or not.

I would never advocate making a law that banned abortions. That makes me pro-choice, thats all I have to feel in order to BE pro-choice. Let me break it down for you just so you understand:

pro - means I support something

choice - in this case allowing a woman to choose if she wants to stay pregnant or not stay pregnant

Thats it, there is nothing more to it. You don't GET to decide whether I am or not.

Now, you can continue to be an ass or you can answer my question, since when was getting access to a safe abortion in modern day America a difficult thing to acquire? I've not heard about this being a huge problem ANYWHERE. I know of the handful of women that I personally know that had abortions, they had no trouble finding a place to do it or paying for it (was very early term of course, but still).

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Yeah. Some of your best friends are abortions

An small excise tax on anti-religious books would be okay as long as all your friends could afford it.

What is your objection to Poll Taxes, if any? Your friends could probably afford to pay it.

[phleshdef]

19. So then you truly are unable to back your BS up.

[phleshdef]

18. And furthermore, you should also answer why you would allow healthcare discrimination against women.

...to continue simply because to do so, tax dollars would CONTINUE to not be used to fund abortions (keep in mind this didn't set a new precedent as far as that goes).

Seems to me like you are allowing your emotions to dictate your decisions instead of logic.