I've downloaded the full House HealthCare Bill and the Stupak Amendment in .pdf if you want a copy

[stevenleser]

pm me with your email address.

Based on what I have read, the fearmongering is not justified. NOW's statements on what the amendment means are not correct.

- Nothing in it prevents private insurance companies from offering abortion coverage.
- Nothing prevents people who are receiving help in paying their insurance from using their own funds to purchase supplemental insurance to cover abortions.

It solely prevents people from using federal government funds available to lower income individuals to pay for a health care plan from using that benefit toward a plan that covers abortion.

As I said, pm me with your email and I will send the .pdfs to you. Note, the .pdf of the full house plan is 3.3MB so make sure your email system will allow that.

[still_one]

1. I agree with you about the healthcare bill because I have read it, but the stupak ammedment is B.S

It was not necessary, and its only purpose was to have a forum for propaganda against abortion

The amendment has NOTHING to do with healthcare, and to use that basis to spread their anti-choice views is unacceptable

[saracat]

2. That is your opinion. Rep Degette, the Pro-Choice Caucus,

Planned Parenthood, NOW , NARAL and Sen. McKaskill all do not agree with you. Nor does Rachel Maddow or Dr. Nancy Snyderman. So you are saying they are ALL wrong and you are correct? Why would they have any reason to make things up when it is in their own interest to be aware of these issues?
The importance and the negative impact of Stupak cannot be underestimated.It is an abomination.

[stevenleser]

3. No, it is not my "opinion". The wording is utterly straightforward.

I am not going to comment on the motives of the people you mentioned. I'll leave that to them to explain.

[saracat]

5. I have read the wording and you are slamming the pro choice groups.

Even the president has some concerns about the language. Rep. Degette has very clearly laid out the concerns of the pro-Choice caucus and anyone who can't comprehend what those are is just an apologist for Stupak and that is very troublesome.

[stevenleser]

8. If you read the amendment, you know that you are spreading unjustified fear

I'm curious as to your motives.

[saracat]

23. My motives are the same as prochoice America, NOW , Naral, Rep Degette,Rachel Maddow and Sen.

McCaskill. Are we ALL malicious fearmongers in your opinion?

[stevenleser]

32. How do you know your motives are the same? Did you ask them?

n/t

[saracat]

40. They state their motives regarding this amendment.They are clear.

Their motives are removing this amendment.

[stevenleser]

52. Well, they have not stated their motives regarding their misunderstanding of the bill to me

so I cannot comment on them.

[saracat]

56. They aren't misunderstanding. You are.

[stevenleser]

59. No, I am not, as I have easily refuted every contrary point you have raised (n/t)

[saracat]

63. And they aren't just my points.You haven't"refuted ".anything

You just repeat your own intepetation and post the amendment and isnist that others read it as you do. You are also very patronizing presenting your opinion as fact and denigrating the opinions of many in a much better position than you are to understand and interpet the wording of the Stupak Amendment than you are. Apparently you know more than all those people including the congresswoman and Senator cited. Even the president said he had problems with the language and it is all honkey doey to you. Amazing. How can everyone else be so very wrong? including Stupak BTW, who obviously wrote an amendment that was meaningless and blackmailed HCR in order to include such an amendment that apparently does nothing. :crazy:

[stevenleser]

65. I'll tell you of what you have convinced me. I am going to write an article on this where i go line

by line through Stupak and explain it so that people like you cannot pretend to see things that arent there or pretend not to see things that are.

This is my final post of the night.

[saracat]

67. Bye. I am sure anti choicers will be thrilled. You are so much smarter than NOW!

[villager]

4. Why not just paste the specific language here in the thread, that contradicts what the pro-choice

groups are saying?

That way, your analysis should be crystal clear....

[stevenleser]

6. Because whoever created the .pdfs created them as graphics, i.e. they did not OCR the text

unfortunately.

[saracat]

14. What interest would the Pro-Choice groups have in misrepresnting the Stupak Amendment?

BTW, most of the groups stipulate to the exact areas which concern them. You could cut and paste to refute their arguments but their arguments are very clear.

[stevenleser]

18. I dont care what is in people's heads, I care what the bill says. (n/t)

[saracat]

28. Answer the question. Why would these people be misrepresenting Stupak?

You are asking us to believe that your interpretation is correct and they are wrong without any justification for it.You imply I am a fear monger for not agreeing with your in interpetation. Are ALL these folks who do not agree with you "fear mongers"? Or are you implying All of them, including Rep. Degette and Sen. McCaskill are illiterate and not as capable of interpreting an amendment as you are?

[stevenleser]

30. For the last time, I am not a mindreader

I have no idea what their motives are.

[saracat]

38. But do you think they are not capable of reading a n amedment correctly?

Because that is what you are saying. You stipulate that yours is not an opinion and they are wrong.

[stevenleser]

53. And that is all to which I stipulate.

We can go on like this all night Sara.

[saracat]

7. What I would like to know is what Interest all of the people I mention he thinks

have in misrepresenting Stupak? What reason would they deliberately be telling untruths and campigning against the stupak Amendment for? What is the OP accusing the various groups and people of?

[stevenleser]

10. Unlike you, I am not attributing motive to people I have never met.

For the purposes of this discussion, motive is irrelevant. The text says what it says. Why are you running away from that to try to discuss motive?

[saracat]

20. I am not. I have quoted the text repeatedly and it is very bad.

And what motive have i assigned to anyone? I have only posted links that state what the groups and individuals say. You state they are wrong. you state that the opinion of people whose life work is the protgection of choice or are legisltors are wrong in their interpetation and you are correct merely by stating you have read the amendment! They have read the amendment as well. Why should anyone take your opinion as correct?I have read the bill and the amendment myself and I also do not agree with you. Your opinion is obviously not a "fact"

[stevenleser]

26. yes you have. You have never met me and you attributed multiple motives to me

On top of that, your analysis of the amendment is wrong. OK, lets get into the nitty gritty.

#1 - What is your take of the last paragraph of the amendment. The one that starts "Any nonfederal QHBP..."
#2 - What is your take of the paragraph that begins "(c) Option to Offer Separate Supplemental Coverave or Plan - Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict..."

[saracat]

33. My take is that anyone who receives any subsidy from the government

Is banned from purchasing an abortion rider and any private insurance company participating in the exchange is banned from offering abortion coverage. It is very clear.

[stevenleser]

37. That is not correct. It specifically says the opposite. Are you intentionally not seeing that?

[saracat]

42. I cannot see what is not there. Why are you seemingly defending Stupak?

[villager]

A couple of other DUers went on the same tangent today, insisting the pro-choice groups were wrong

...and Stupak was somehow more innocuous than we, the deluded, have been led to believe.

it's peculiar, but lately, you can find DUers to rationalize and defend just about anything...

[stevenleser]

13. Oh brother. Have you read the text?

Its 2.5 pages or so and is very straightforward.

[villager]

15. so by now you could've quoted here the salient passages, yes?

So how about it?

[stevenleser]

17. No. But you can read them here

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

[saracat]

41. No kidding.

[ecstatic]

81. They, like you, probably did NOT read the bill and are relying on

someone else's opinion or interpretation of what's in the bill.

[madfloridian]

9. Find a video of Rachel's show tonight before you argue about this.

It was covered thoroughly. Many of us have posted about the implications of this.

It will expand Hyde, it does discriminate against women.

Bottom line.

[stevenleser]

11. I have the text in front of me. Why would I trust someone else's interpretation over what I am

reading with my own two eyes?

[villager]

12. how about a quote or two? To, you know, make your case a slam dunk?

n/t

[stevenleser]

16. Here, I found a link. Have at it...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

[villager]

19. Was about to post the same link, and of course, you're wrong -- the language is clear

about the prohibition in Exchanges.

It's on Page Two.

[stevenleser]

21. No, I am not wrong. Which part dont you get? (n/t)

[villager]

24. Read. Page. Two.

The policies offered on the exchanges can't fund abortions. Including the private policies.

thus, this becomes a tax on middle-class women who want the coverage, since the private policies won't be allowed to offer it. Which part don't you get?

[stevenleser]

27. That is not correct. There are two versions of every plan to be offered.

One is for people who are getting subsidized insurance and one for people paying it all themselves. The subsidized versions cannot include abortion funding. While we are at it:

#1 - What is your take of the last paragraph of the amendment. The one that starts "Any nonfederal QHBP..."
#2 - What is your take of the paragraph that begins "(c) Option to Offer Separate Supplemental Coverave or Plan - Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict..."

[villager]

36. If it's the last section, I think the language in paragraph (1) is clear about the funding

restrictions...

Look, it's late, and I have some writing deadlines to attend to. You're probably actually a fine fella and a good DUer. Don't get co-opted by these rightwing "Family" legislators into defending their dirty work.

This shit needs to be stopped, not apologized for, and we need you on the side of light...

on edit: I also had this exact same "discussion" with two entirely belligerent DUers earlier, who insisted this amendment was all peaches & cream. And I'm weary of going round and round on it, which doubtless led me to tee off here and there in this thread...

As more and more policies gravitate to exchanges, this will affect more and more women. Which is what the other side wants, of course.

have a swell evening...!

[stevenleser]

22. Once again from my OP

- Nothing in it prevents private insurance companies from offering abortion coverage.
- Nothing prevents people who are receiving help in paying their insurance from using their own funds to purchase supplemental insurance to cover abortions.

It solely prevents people from using federal government funds available to lower income individuals to pay for a health care plan from using that benefit toward a plan that covers abortion.

[villager]

25. It's a punitive tax on women, that doesn't currently exist. Why are other DU men

having a hard time understanding this?

Well, some DU men.

[stevenleser]

29. My OP doesnt address that. It addresses some of the incorrect contentions.

The House Bill does not change the status quo on abortions at all or at least by any substantial measure. That is my contention.

[villager]

34. Yes, it changes the fucking status quo, because women whose insurance covered them

...will now have to pay fucking extra -- if they can afford it -- because of this anti-choice anti-woman "hidden tax" snuck into the goddamn bill.

Why on earth are you defending this?

[stevenleser]

43. That is absolutely not true. Look, I may be male, but my insurance through my firm covers abortion

and it is not going to change, or go up, or require a rider because of the house bill. Nor would it require that of someone buying a plan on the exchange if they are going to pay for it themselves.

That means the status quo does not change.

[villager]

50. "...if they are going to pay for it themselves."

You've just answered your own question.

And they -- those women -- will pay a lot more for the non-exchange covered "slut policy" that will now be "extra," instead of included as it is under the current status quo.

And as more and more policies gravitate toward exchanges...

[stevenleser]

57. The "non-exchange covered slut policies" as you call them are what companies buy for their employees

and those are not going to change. Every contention you raise has a glaring flaw.

[villager]

62. Companies will buy extra abortion coverage for their employees?

Oh really?

Aside from Google, perhaps, which company?

Every contention you raise has a glaring flaw.

[stevenleser]

64. I already have abortion coverage, why would I need extra? Do you not understand the concept of the

two plans?

[villager]

68. do you not understand the concept of one plan costing more than the other?

And it therefore being essentially a punitive tax on something that at the moment, isn't charged "extra" for?

[uponit7771]

74. Right!! Stupak doesnt say HCI's can NOT offer abortion insurance they have to offer a rider WITHOUT

...abortion insurance though and vice versay

[stevenleser]

46. "Why are you defending this" - I'll explain

If my analysis is correct, and I am pretty sure it is, this does not change the status quo on abortion at all. And if that is true, the dissention in the party over this part of the bill should be quashed so that the bill can proceed.

[saracat]

48. Unfortunately ,you are wrong.And many of us, including some who have a vote

are going to raise hell until this amendment is removed. The Pro-Choice caucus has vowed to block HCR until this is removed. But I guess they don't interpret the Amendment correctly either. I guess they aren't literate or informed .

[stevenleser]

55. I am not wrong. Every argument you have raised I have easily refuted.

Perhaps you will answer this question since you want to talk motive. Why do you insist on not seeing what is plainly in the bill? What is your motive?

My motives are plain. I want healthcare reform to pass absent some glaring issue. If this is a non issue that simply forwards the status quo on abortion, I want healthcare reform to pass.

Why do you ignore the portions of the amendment that clearly refute your contention(s)?

[saracat]

58. You haven't refuted a darn thing. You just deny and insist your opinion

and interpretation is fact.And I ignore nothing. I disagree with your interpretation of A and B . And so do many other folks much better informed than either of us.

[stevenleser]

60. Every time you have raised a portion of the language, I have shown you where you were wrong

Its easy to see what you are doing. You simply are ignoring the parts of the amendment that refute your points. When I point them out, you have nothing to say.

[saracat]

66. Not so. Thank God you don't have any influence or a vote.Just let the Pro-Choice

Caucus and the truly informed folks deal with this.

[madfloridian]

78. It's means the Democratic party took the side of religion over women's rights.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. The entire bill is a tax increase on men

The bill equalizes medical insurance premiums. Gender is not a rating criteria despite being the biggest determinant of how much a person costs.

In 2004, the Health Research and Education trust conducted a study analyzing healthcare spending by gender. The lifetime cost of care for the average man is $268,700 (about $302 per month for life) while the lifetime cost of care for the average woman is $361,200 (or about $376 per month for life). About 40% of that $92,500 differential is due to the fact that women live longer.

If you want "fair" I should either pay 20% less than you OR the system should apply enough resources to mens health that we don't live 8% shorter lives.

[nosferaustin]

72. because it's someone else's interpretation

that will implement this legislation. Making a group of citizens purchase a rider for a perfectly legal medical procedure is discriminatory. Period. It assumes that women plan on having this procedure; or that women should have to pay for this extra coverage just in case. Erroneous, discriminatory assumptions.

[sandnsea]

31. It's what could happen under this legislation

The belief is that nobody will want to buy a supplemental abortion policy, otherwise known as the slut who needs so many abortions she has insurance, plan. Consequently it will quickly become unavailable.

Same argument for the private plans. If the insurance company has to duplicate every plan it offers, one with abortion and one without, they'll just not bother offering abortion at all.

That's the argument. I think it has some merit.

I also think it has a simple solution, as I've said. Add voluntary abortion riders to all policies in the country, administered separately. Removes the stigma, separates the money, solves the problem if calmer heads would prevail.

[stevenleser]

35. Now that is an interesting contention worth discussing. Thank you.

Note that I object to the use of the word "sl-t".

I also like your solution. But I think it is unnecessary. As we have been told many times by the administration, most people's coverage would not be affected by Health Care Reform. If you have it already as most do through their employers, nothing would change. You still have somewhere around 90% (at least that is what I heard somewhere, I am open to being wrong on that) of employer provided plans covering pregnancy termination services. That is a lot of inertia to overcome.

[sandnsea]

51. Oh hey, me too

I was shocked when I first saw someone say that. I use it in a sarcastic manner, to make the point but at the same time point out to some others how crass that terminology is.

The reason I think it would be good to have the rider in all policies is because most policies don't offer abortion coverage. This would be a great way to give the option to everybody, including men who want to take responsibility for their daughters and s.o, should there be an unwanted pregnancy.

[NYC_SKP]

39. +1, I think you've identified the distinction.

NOW is not above making mis-characterizations, nor is any other group...

And much of this is speculation from all parts of the political spectrum.

[Forkboy]

44. "solves the problem if calmer heads would prevail."

In other words, it'll never happen.

[saracat]

45. This is a practical example of just "one" of the problems

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6976518&mesg_id=6976577


just answered this in another thread, but here goes again.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 02:43 AM by Xithras
Where I live, a surgical abortion from your regular OB will run you about $600. My current Anthem Blue Cross policy covers abortions for both my wife and teenage daughter (and me, technically, though I lack the parts to ever need one) with a $125 deductible. Abortions can also be obtained at a nearby clinic for about $300, if a woman is willing to let someone other than her regular doctor perform it, but insurance doesn't cover any of the cost since the "out of network" deductible is $500.

If Anthem were to retool my coverage at renewal so they could start offering the plan on the exchange, my wife and daughter would lose our current abortion coverage. As a result, they'd either have to pay ~$600 out of pocket to have their regular GYN perform one, or pay $300 out of pocket to the local clinic. Depending on how you look at it, you have increased the cost of the abortion either 2.5-fold or 5-fold.

[villager]

47. +1

n/t

[stevenleser]

49. That doesnt make sense.

#1 - Anthem, if it intends to offer your plan on the exchange, would create a separate version for those who get help from the government to pay it.

#2 - Anthem is probably like many other health insurance companies and offers several dozen plans now as it is. It isnt like creating two versions of a few of their plans so that they can offer them on the exchange is that big of a deal. Not compared to getting tens or hundreds of thousands of new customers.

[saracat]

54. If you had "read" my post properly you would be able to interpret that this isn't "MY" plan

but it is a reference,complete with link, to another DU post by another poster. perhaps that explains your problem with interpreting Stupak?

[stevenleser]

61. No, I read your post correctly. Once again, you didnt read the parts of my post that you didnt like

because they refuted your points.

[uponit7771]

71. K, Stupak sec 236 and Hyde 507 read almost word for word the same why isn't that happening today

...as we type?

TIA

[madfloridian]

69. "Calmer heads"? Big putdown when our party just sold out women...

to the religious community.

[uponit7771]

70. There's NO supplemental insurance NOW! Stupak, like Hyde, does NOT prevent the use of ones own money

[joeycola]

76. NO, it is NOT simple when women are discriminated against and have to Buy

additional coverage for health care. !! got that!!

[Jennicut]

79. Total practical solution

Not sure if anyone in the Dem party would be smart enough to do it though.

[madfloridian]

75. They sold women out to the religious right. Just like they have done to gays.

I am amazed at how vicious people are getting here toward those of us who say the amendment is wrong.

It is shocking how many defend such a religiously oriented bill to discriminate against women.

[firedupdem]

77. Thanks Steven. I'll pm you n/t

[dccrossman]

80. I think you may be missing part of the point

First, your two points are correct. It does not prevent private insurance from offering abortion coverage and it does not prevent someone who has purchased insurance on the exchange from purchasing "abortion coverage" separately.

Let me try to help you understand the problem.

Let's say you're using the exchange. That likely means that your income is in the lower percentiles. Will you have the disposable income to purchase abortion coverage on top of the subsidized coverage?

The problem is that it creates a giant hurdle for those in the lowest income brackets to have access to a legal medical procedure for no good reason.

Also, even if you are using the exchange without being subsidized, it will be difficult to find an option that includes abortion coverage, because insurance companies will want their options to appeal to as many people as possible.


Now there are those who could say that at a really high, abstract level, it's like buying Flood Insurance when you aren't in a zone that requires it. Or maybe like purchasing Collision insurance, when only Liability is required.

I think that it's a false equivalence, but if you fall in that category, I can at least understand your argument.

You need to try to put yourself in the position of a potential parent, you've done everything right, but you find out that your child, if born, will only suffer greatly before dying at a very young age, and you find yourself in a position to need to get an abortion. At that time, you find that you need to be able to fully pay for the procedure out of pocket because the mother's life is not in jeopardy, and there was no rape or incest.
This is not my story, but one that I've found to be particularly powerful:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/